Search

Lucrezia Ferrario,1 Fabrizio Schettini,1 Angelo Avogaro,2 Chiara Bellia,3 Federico Bertuzzi,4 Graziella Bonetti,5 Antonio Ceriello,6 Marcello Ciaccio,3,7 Massimiliano Corsi Romanelli,8,9 Elena Dozio,9 Luca Falqui,10 Angela Girelli,11 Antonio Nicolucci,12 Gianluca Perseghin,13,14 Mario Plebani,15 Umberto Valentini,11 Martina Zaninotto,15 Silvana Castaldi,9,16 Emanuela Foglia1 1Centre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC, Castellanza, Italy; 2Department of Medicine, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy; 3Section of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Medicine, Department of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy; 4Diabetology Unit, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy; 5Department of Medicine Services, Valcamonica Hospital, Esine, Italy; 6Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases, Multimedica Research Institute, Milan, Italy; 7Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital of Palermo, Palermo, Italy; 8Service of Laboratory Medicine 1-Clinical Pathology, Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy; 9Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy; 10Department of Medicine, Diabetes and Endocrinology, Multimedica Research Institute, Milan, Italy; 11Diabetes Care Unit, Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy; 12Center for Outcomes Research and Clinical Epidemiology, Pescara, Italy; 13Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy; 14Department of Medicine and Rehabilitation, Unit of Metabolic Medicine, Policlinico di Monza, Monza, Italy; 15Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy; 16Fondazione Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Research Institute of Milano, Milano, ItalyCorrespondence: Lucrezia FerrarioCentre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Carlo Cattaneo – LIUC, Corso Matteotti 22, Castellanza, 21053, VA, ItalyTel +39 033 1572504Fax +39 033 1572513Email lferrario@liuc.itPurpose: To investigate the glycated albumin (GA) introduction implications, as an add-on strategy to traditional glycemic control (Hb1Ac and fasting plasma glucose – FPG) instruments, considering insulin-naïve individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), treated with oral therapies.Methods: A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in Italy, as a multi-dimensional approach useful to validate any innovative technology. The HTA dimensions, derived from the EUnetHTA Core Model, were deployed by means of literature evidence, health economics tools and qualitative questionnaires, filled-in by 15 professionals.Results: Literature stated that the GA introduction could lead to a higher number of individuals achieving therapeutic success after 3 months of therapy (97.0% vs 71.6% without GA). From an economic point of view, considering a projection of 1,955,447 T2DM insulin-naïve individuals, potentially treated with oral therapy, GA introduction would imply fewer individuals requiring a therapy switch (− 89.44%), with a 1.06% in costs reduction, on annual basis, thus being also the preferable solution from a cost-effectiveness perspective (cost-effectiveness value: 237.74 vs 325.53). According to experts opinions, lower perceptions on GA emerged with regard to equity aspects (0.13 vs 0.72, p-value> 0.05), whereas it would improve both individuals (2.17 vs 1.33, p-value=0.000) and caregivers quality of life (1.50 vs 0.83, p-value=0.000). Even if in the short term, GA required additional investments in training courses (− 0.80 vs 0.10, p-value = 0.036), in the long run, GA could become the preferable technology (0.30 vs 0.01, p-value=0.018) from an organisational perspective.Conclusion: Adding GA to traditional glycaemic control instruments could improve the clinical pathway of individuals with T2DM, leading to economic and organisational advantages for both hospitals and National Healthcare Systems.Keywords: glycated albumin, type 2 diabetes mellitus, T2DM, Health Technology Assessment, economic evaluation, multidimensional approach

Tiziana Galli,1 Paolo Mirata,2 Emanuela Foglia,3 Davide Croce,3,4 Emanuele Porazzi,3 Lucrezia Ferrario,3 Elena Ricci,5 Elisabetta Garagiola,3 Roberta Pagani,3 Giuseppe Banfi6,7 1Department of Functional Recovery and Re-education, Hospital of Saronno, Hospital Authority “ASST Valle Olona”, Saronno, Italy; 2Department of Functional Recovery and Re-education, Hospital of Busto Arsizio, Hospital Authority “ASST Valle Olona”, Busto Arsizio, Italy; 3Centre for Research on Health Economics Social and Health Care Management (CREMS), LIUC - Università Cattaneo, Castellanza, Italy; 4School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; 5Department of Infectious Diseases, Fatebenefratelli Sacco Hospital, Milan, Italy; 6Orthopaedics Institute, IRCCS Galeazzi, Milan, Italy; 7San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare 2 clinical assessment tools, the Modified Barthel Index (currently administered to patients admitted into inpatient rehabilitation units after elective hip or knee arthroplasty) with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 scale, in order to identify which tool is more suitable for assessing the disability and the “recovery rate”.Patients and methods: A perspective multicenter observational study was developed, involving 2 hospital authorities in Italy. Eighty consecutive cases of inpatients were enrolled. Patient’s disability was evaluated using both of the aforementioned tools, before and after the rehabilitation program.Results: The WHODAS 2.0 score was, on average, 12.21% higher than the Modified Barthel Index, before the surgical intervention. Modified Barthel Index measures could be considered as a determinant and a predictor of length of stay.Conclusion: The Modified Barthel Index is limited, since it does not consider a patient’s perspective. The WHODAS 2.0 scale fully considers a patient’s perception of disability. Therefore, both assessment scales should be administered in clinical practice, in order to provide integration of clinical information with a patient’s reported outcome measures. Keywords: disability, Modified Barthel Index, WHODAS 2.0, orthopedics, rehabilitation