Response to Comments on Zhang et al. Second-Line Agents for Glycemic Control for Type 2 Diabetes: Are Newer Agents Better? Diabetes Care 2014;37:1338–1345
Year: 2014
Type: letter
Abstract: We are grateful for the comments from Messori and Bellia (1) and those of Bae et al. (2) regarding our article (3). We hope the following response will clarify the questions they raised.
Messori and Bellia (1) pointed out that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is preferred over the absolute cost-effectiveness ratio. We agree, and it is worth noting that Fig. 1 in our article provides complete details about the expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) prior to first events and the expected medication costs under all treatment regiments. As such, it subsumes ICER estimates. Admittedly, the readers must calculate them from the graph and therefore we provide the estimates for the glycemic control goal of HbA1c <7% here. For males, for regimens T1-T4 the ICERs in units of $/QALY are 10,369, 11,062, 11,277, 11,144, respectively. For females, for regimens T1-T4 the ICERs are 9,310, 9,865, 10,043, 9,933, respectively.
Messori …
Source: Diabetes Care
DOI: 10.2337/dc14-1339
Authors: Yuanhui Zhang, Rozalina G. McCoy, Jennifer E. Mason, Steven A. Smith, Nilay D. Shah, Brian T. Denton
Language: English
Subfield: Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2168180756