Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 212937

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionKey MessageReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2011 | Month : October | Volume : 5 | Issue : 5 | Page : 1064 - 1068 Full Version

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Different Insulin Regimes during the Peri- Operative Period in Type-2 Diabetics in India


Published: October 1, 2011 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2011/.1524
MUSHTAQ AHMAD, ZAHOOR AHMAD WAFAI, ZAFER YAB KHAN, VIKAS SETH

Department of Pharmacology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Sitapura, Jaipur- 302022. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar (Jammu & Kashmir) State - 190001. Department of Pharmacology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Sitapura, Jaipur- 302022. Department of Pharmacology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Sitapura, Jaipur- 302022.

Correspondence Address :
Mushtaq Ahmad
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Pharmacology
Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital,
Sitapura, Jaipur-302022.
Phone: 9460983755;
E-mail: marumush@gmail.com

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Diabetes accounts for at least 10% of the total expenditure in many countries. Diabetics who undergo surgery are prone to adverse outcomes that can prolong their hospital stay and increase their health care expenditure. This prompted the present study to compare the cost-effectiveness of different insulin regimes during the perioperative period in type 2 diabetics.

Study Design: This study was a multi-centric, prospective, single blind, randomised study. Two hundred eighty nine type 2 diabetes mellitus patients who underwent major elective surgeries were enrolled and randomly allocated to four groups A, B, C and D, receiving pre-mixed Regular/NPH(30:70), splitmixed Regular/NPH, split-mixed Glargine/Lispro and split-mixed Detemir/Aspart, respectively.

Materials and Methods: Each group received multiple injections from the preoperative to the postoperative period until the patients were switched back to the same treatment regime which they received preoperatively. The starting dose of the insulin was 0.5 units per/kg body weight, which was then adjusted to maintain the average blood glucose level between 120-180mg/dl during the peri-operative period. The cost-effectiveness was calculatedand the interventions were compared on the basis of the amount which was needed to treat the patient. The average one day cost for all the regimes was calculated and the total cost was divided by the percentage of the success of the regime by applying an incremental cost-effectiveness formula. The Chi-square test was employed for analysis of the complications and one way ANOVA was used for the rest of the data. A probability value of less than 0.05 (p<0.05) was considered to be statistically significant.

Results: There was a highly significant difference (p<0.001) in the mean costs of the regime A, B, C and D, respectively. The cost-effectiveness was done in a fashion of regime A vs. B and regime C vs. D. The incremental cost of the treatment for regime B was Rs. 7.21 and for regime D, it was Rs. 20.17 per added patient, with no peri-operative complications. However, the percentage of the incidence of the complications and the total cost was comparatively low with regime A.

Conclusions: This study found the pre-mixed NPH/regular (30:70) regime to be a cost-effective therapy among the regimes which were compared, while the split-mixed (NPH) regime posed a greater financial burden on the patient in terms of the complications which occurred and the total cost of the treatment.

Keywords

Insulin, Type-2 diabetics, Cost-effectiveness, Peri-operative period, Cost, NPH, Lispro, Aspart, Glargine, Detemir

Introduction
The alarming prevalence of type-2 diabetes worldwide in general and in India in particular, poses a major clinical and economic burden. The cost of diabetes care is high and is escalating worldwide. Diabetics have a 50% risk for undergoing surgery in their life span than non diabetics and are more prone to adverse outcomes, resulting in an increase in their health care expenditure (1). India, a developing country, with limited economical resources, is leading the world in the number of diabetics and lacks a comprehensivehealth care system for diabetic patients. Diabetes accounts for at least 10% of the total health expenditure in many countries. Globally, it is the 5th leading cause of death. The WHO estimated a figure of about 987000 deaths in the year 2002, directly due to diabetes, which is 1.7% of the total world mortality. The cost of the treatment also depends on the severity of the disease (2). Higher medical costs were associated with elevated fasting plasma glucose levels (3). Preventing the progression to diabetes, when the costs are known to be dramatically greater, would be likely to provide substantialeconomic benefit (4). Similarly, a study showed a 26% increase in the financial requirements for diabetes in Mexico from 2003 to 2005 (5). A WHO report says that excess mortality which is attributable to diabetes, has in the past decade, caused more deaths than all the wars combined (6). Also, the rates of disability are in general about 2-3 times as great in diabetics than in non-diabetics, but blindness is about 10 times common and gangrene is 20-30 times common in diabetics (7).

The total cost for diabetes in 2010 was forecast to be $778,427,475, including direct and indirect costs (8). While comparing the different insulin analogues for cost-effectiveness, the newer, longer acting glargine was found to be comparatively more cost-effective in type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients than its intermediate acting (NPH) counterpart (9). As against these findings, a study reported pre-mixed 30/70 to be highly cost-effective (88% than glargine) (10). Another study reported that insulin glargine was associated with an incremental cost of $642.994 per quality-adjusted lifeyear (11). Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were treated with glargine/glulisine achieved better glycaemic control than did patients who were treated with pre-mixed insulin, without an increase in the cost of treatment (12).

Patients with diabetes undergo surgery at a higher rate than nondiabetics and are prone to adverse outcomes that can prolong the hospital stay (13) and increase the mortality (14). The suboptimal glycaemic management during surgery contributes to increased morbidity and aggravates the untoward effects of concomitant illnesses (15). To minimize the effects, both of the metabolic derangement on the surgical complications and of the surgery on hyperglycaemia, the management in the peri-operative period depends on the ambient level of glycaemic control and the treatment regimen (16). Different insulin treatment interventions are employed to control the hyperglycaemia and to reduce the incidence of postoperative complications in type-2 diabetics during the perioperative period. But studies on the comparative assessment of the cost- effectiveness of the insulin regimes are lacking.

This prompted the present study to find out the cost-effectiveness of different insulin regimes which were given to diabetic patients during their peri-operative period.

Material and Methods

Two hundred eighty nine type-2 diabetes mellitus patients who underwent major surgeries, who were admitted to the surgical wards, were enrolled. All the patients were referred to the endocrinology unit of the concerned participating hospital for metabolic management. The patients in whom it was decided to control the preoperative hyperglycaemia with subcutaneous insulin were studied. Old and newly diagnosed type-2 DM patients of ages between 18-70 years were included and patients on the concomitant use of oral hypoglycaemics, chronic corticosteroids or any other drug which precipitated or aggravated the diabetes mellitus were excluded. Patients who were undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and pregnant females were also excluded. This study was conducted at the M.G. hospital, S.M.S. hospital and the Fortis Escorts hospital, Jaipur. Written, informed consents of all the patients and the approval of the institutional ethics committee (IEC) were obtained before the start of the study.

Each group was given multiple injections into the subcutaneous tissue of the upper arm, the anterior and lateral aspects of the thigh and into the buttocks and abdomen preoperatively till a day before the surgery and a day after the surgery, until the patientswere switched back to the same treatment regime which they received preoperatively. The starting dose of the insulin was 0.5 units per/kg body weight. The insulin dose was adjusted according to the pre-meal and post-meal blood glucose values. Any increase or decrease in the insulin requirement was noted and compared with a goal to maintain the average blood glucose level between 120-180mg/dl. In split-mixed regimes, regular insulin was given (SC) in three equally divided doses, with each meal and long acting insulin being administered regardless of the patient’s oral intake status at bed time. The pre-mixed regime was given twice daily, before breakfast and before dinner. The blood glucose (BG) was measured before each meal and at bed time to assess the glycaemia control. In addition, the BG was measured at any time if a patient experienced the symptoms of hypoglycaemia (BG<60 mg/dl) or if it was requested by the treating physician. The outcomes which were observed were the differences in the degree of glycaemic control and the incidence of the postoperative complications which occurred among the treatment groups. The total costs were categorised as the direct and indirect costs of each patient were calculated and then, the cost-effectiveness of the insulin regimes were compared.

The cost-effectiveness was calculated and the interventions were compared on the basis of the amount which was needed to treat the patient. Initially, for all the treatment regimes, the average one day cost was calculated. Then, the total cost of the hospital stay from admission to discharge was calculated. The total cost was divided by the percentage of the success of the regime (i.e. the percentage of patients who had no complications by the particular treatment regime) by applying the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness (ICE) formula (17).

(Cost of Treatment A – Cost of Treatment B) ICE = (Success of Treatment A – Success of Treatment B)

Statistical Analysis: The Chi-square test was employed for the analysis of the complications and ANOVA (one way classification) was used for the rest of the data. The statistical analysis was done by the SPSS version 10.0 statistical software. A probability value of less than 0.05 (p<0.05) was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

All 289 type-2 diabetes mellitus patients who were operated for different major surgical procedures completed the study. The four treatment groups were comparable with respect to age, sex and BMI. The patients were compared on the basis of the insulin dose, the days of hospitalization and the cost and incidence of the postoperative complications which were attributable to the treatment regimes during the peri-operative period (Table/Fig 1). Then, the total cost of the hospital stay from admission to discharge and the effectiveness i.e. the percentage of patients with no postoperative complications (NPOC) were calculated to assess the costeffectiveness of each treatment regime. The mean pretreatment blood glucose levels in treatment regime A (232.10 ± 3.90), B (229.05 ± 3.61), C (233.71 ± 5.31) and D (227.76 ± 5.61) were similar among the treatment groups (P = NS).

While comparing the mean total daily insulin dose, it was found that there was a highly significant difference (p<0.001) in the treatment regimes A (37.36 ± 0.82), B (36.24 ± 0.97), C (30.46 ± 1.44), and D (31.50 ± 0.63), respectively. However, the mean total insulindose which was used to achieve the target was comparatively lower in regime C. On comparing the mean number of days of hospitalization; a significant difference was observed in the mean number of days of hospitalization in the regimes A (8.17 ± 0.46), B (6.81±0.38), C (5.73 ± 0.18), and D (6.7± 0.10), respectively. However, the patients of regime C took lesser time and had an earlier recovery as compared to those who received the other regimes.

On comparing the mean cost of the insulin regimes which were used during the peri-operative period, it was found that there was highly significant difference (p<0.001) among the regimes A (448.90 ± 28.99), B (501.78 ± 36.99), C (641.27 ± 28.92) and D (861.64 ± 25.4) respectively. However, the mean cost was comparatively lower in patients who were treated with regime A. While comparing the percentage of the patients who had no postoperative complications (NPOC), it was found that 50% of the patients had no complications with regime A, 57.33% had no complications with regime B, 62.31% patients had no complications with regime C and 73.23% patients had no complications with regime D (Table/Fig 2).

The mean cost of each insulin regime which was given during the peri-operative period and the treatment effectiveness i.e. the percentage of patients with no postoperative complications (NPOC) were compared for the cost-effective analysis (CEA) in a fashion of regime A vs. B and regime C vs. D. The incremental cost of the treatment regime B was Rs. 7.21 and for regime D, it was Rs. 20.17 per added patient, with no postoperative complications.

Though the cost of the regime A was comparatively less with 50% of the patients having no postoperative complications, resulted as cost-effective regime among regimes compared (Table/Fig 3). However, the higher number of patients (73.23%) who received the insulin regime D had no postoperative complications (NPOC), though the cost factor was higher as compared to those who received the other insulin regimes.

Discussion

The economic comparison with regards to the use of the treatment interventions for cost-effectiveness becomes more relevant today while considering the magnitude of the problem, the money spent on it and the increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus in the developing countries with limited resources. India is leading the world in the number of diabetics and this number would increase to 80 million diabetic patients by the year 2030 (18). One fifth of the patients who undergo surgery are diabetics (1). Different insulin treatment regimes are used for glycaemic control to avoid postoperative complications. Apart from the efficacy and safety, the affordability of the treatment regime is equally important for a patient from the low socioeconomic strata. There is a paucity of studies which have compared the different insulin regimes for cost-effectiveness in type-2 diabetics during the peri-operative period. However, studies on non surgical clinical situations are available. This study has compared four different insulin regimes in type-2 diabetes mellitus patients who underwent different major surgical procedures during their peri-operative period. The major outcomes which werecompared for the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness were the costs which were spent from admission to discharge on the medication, hospital stay and the incidence of the postoperative complications in each insulin regime which was given to the patient groups during the peri-operative period. For the evaluation of the incremental costeffective ratio (ICER) (19), the group A which received premixed NPH/ regular in a ratio of 30:70 was compared with the group B who received split-mixed NPH/regular, while group C which received split-mixed glargine/lispro was compared with regime D which received split-mixed detemir/aspart, respectively.

The regimes A, B, C and D showed a significant difference (p<0.001) in the average insulin dose which was used during the peri-operative period. However, the total insulin dose which was used during the peri-operative period was comparatively low in patients who received the basal bolus insulin regime C (glargine/lispro). While comparing the mean number of days for which the patients were hospitalized, who received the different insulin regimes, it was found that there was a significant difference (p<0.001) among all the regimes. However, the hospital stay was less in patients who received the insulin regime C (glargine/lispro) as compared to those who received the other insulin regimes. On assessing the entire cost which was spent on the medication and the hospital stay for the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the insulin regimes, it was found that there was a highly significant difference (p<0.001) in the regimes A, B, C and D, respectively. The mean cost was comparatively lesser in patients who received regime A (premixed NPH/regular).

Effectiveness, an important domain of the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER), was analysed by the percentage of the patients who had no postoperative complications (NPOC) with the insulin regime that they received during the peri-operative period. The least number of patients (50%) with NPOC who received premixed NPH/regular (30:70) were recorded in group A. It was interesting to note that a higher percentage of patients with NPOC were recorded in the basal bolus regimes of glargine/lispro (62.31%) and the highest number (73.23%) with NPOC were recorded in regime D (detemir/ aspart).

On comparing the analysis of the mean cost and the percentage of NPOC which was achieved by the different insulin regimes for the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER), the ICER was found to be Rs. 7.21 per added patient with no peri-operative complications, with the treatment regime B (split-mixed NPH/regular). While comparing the basal bolus regime C vs. regime D, the ICER was found to be Rs. 20.17 per added patient with no peri-operative complications, with regime D (detemir/aspart). The NPH/regular regimes were cost-effective as compared to the basal bolus glargine/lispro and the detemir/aspart. However, this study, as is evident from theresults, found out that the pre-mixed NPH/regular (30:70) regime was a cost-effective therapy as compared to the other insulin regimes. The results of this study are in support of a medical study which reported premixed NPH/regular (30:70) to be highly cost-effective (88% than glargine) (10). Another study reported similar results, that premixed NPH/regular was cost-effective in UK settings in comparison to insulin glargine (20). On the contrary, a study on type 2 diabetics reported glargine/glulisine to be more cost-effective than premixed NPH/regular (12).

Though the cost factor was low in the NPH/regular regimes, the complications which were observed were much lesser with the basal bolus regimes of glargine/ lispro and detemir/aspart. Therefore, the glargine/lispro and detemir/aspart regimes could be preferable in patients who could afford them. With the advent of newer analogues of insulin, more short and long term studies are needed in this direction to establish the cost-effectiveness of the various insulin regimes.

Key Message

Diabetes accounts for at least 10% of the total health expenditure in many countries. India has the world’s largest diabetes population that imposes a large economic burden. Studies on the cost-effectiveness of the insulin regimes during the peri-operative period in type 2 diabetics are lacking. The pre-mixed NPH/regular regime is a cost-effective therapy, while the split-mixed (NPH) regime poses a greater financial burden The glargine/lispro and detemir/aspart regimes could be preferable in patients who could afford them, as lesser complications were observed with them.

References

1.
Clement S, Braithwaite SS, Magee MF, et al: Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals. Diabetes Care 2004; 27:553–591.
2.
Roglic G, Tuolehto J, Unwin N et al: The burden of the mortality which is attributable to diabetes. Realistic estimates for the year 2000. Diabetes Care 2005; 28:2130 –2135.
3.
Nichols GA, Brown J B: Higher medical costs accompany impaired fasting glucose. Diabetes Care 2005; 28:2223–2229.
4.
Nichols, Gregory A, Arondekar, Bhakti, Herman, William H: Medical care costs one year after the identification of hyperglycaemia below the threshold for diabetes. Medical Care 2008; 46: 287-292.
5.
Arredondo A, Zuniga A: Economic consequences of epidemiological changes in diabetes in middle income countries. Diabetes Care 2004; 27:1104-1109.
6.
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 646, 1980.
7.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 727, 1985.
8.
Arredondo, de Icaza E: Financial requirements for the treatment of diabetes in Latin America: implications for the health system and for patients in Mexico. Diabetologia 2009; 52:693–1695.
9.
Rogdriguez CR, Terres R, Bolinder B: Economic evaluation of the use of glargine as compared with NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes in Spain. Diabetology 2004 Aug; 47/1: P-A 344. .
10.
Willian J, Valentile, Ander J Palmer, Lamment et al: Long term clinical and cost outcomes of treatment with biphasic insulin apart 30/70 v/s/ glargine insulin in type-2 diabetic patients: patients: cost effective analysis in U.K. setting. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2005; 21: 2063-2071.
11.
Chris G, Cameron MSC, Heather A, Bennett: Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues for diabetes mellitus. CMAJ 2009; 180/ 4: 400-407.
12.
A Report from the 44th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2008; 7-11.
13.
Umpierrez GE, Isaacs SD, Bazargan N: Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in-hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002; 87/3: 978-982.
14.
Krinsley JS: Association between hyperglycaemia and increased hospital mortality in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients. Mayo Clin Proc 2003; 78/12: 1471-1478.
15.
Jesson ME: Glucose control during cardiac surgery: how sweet it is. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 12/5: 985-987.
16.
Marks JB: Peri-operative management of diabetes. Am Fam Physic 2003; 67/1: 93-100.
17.
Gan TJ, Lubarsky DA: Cost effectiveness ratio: an open misunderstood term. Response. Dept. of Anes, Duke University Medical centre Durham, NC 27710.
18.
Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H: Global prevalence of diabetes: Estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004; 27:1047-53.
19.
Diana L, McAdam C: Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues. The American Journal of Managed Care 2008; 14:766-775.
20.
Willian JV, Ander JP, Lamment: Long term clinical and cost outcomes of the treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 versus glargine in type 2 diabetic patients: cost effective analysis in U.K. setting. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2005; 21/12: 2063-2071.

DOI and Others

JCDR/2011/1524

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com