Skip to main content
Log in

The Authors’ Reply

  • Correspondence
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. British Cardiac Society, British Hypertension Society, Diabetes UK, et al. Joint British Societies’ guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice (JSB2). Heart 2005; 91 Suppl. 5: vl–52

    Google Scholar 

  2. International Diabetes Federation Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Global guideline for type 2 diabetes. Chapter 12: cardiovascular risk protection. Brussels, International Diabetes Federation, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  3. University of York NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Getting evidence into practice. Eff Health Care 1999; 5 (1)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cranney M, Warren E, Barton S, et al. Why do GPs not implement evidence-based guidelines? A descriptive study. Fam Pract 2001; 18 (4): 359–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. UK analysis using IMS Disease Analyzer Q107 update. London: Takeda, 2007 (Data on file)

  6. Keech A, Simes RJ, Barter P, et al. Effects of long-term fenofibrate therapy on cardiovascular events in 9795 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the FIELD study): randomised controlled trial [published erratum appears in Lancet 2006; 368: 1415, 1420]. Lancet 2005; 366: 1849–1861

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, et al. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin or glyburide monotherapy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355 (23): 2427–2443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ, et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1279–1289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cappuccio FP, Wilson K, Marchant N, et al. Management of hyperlipidemia in the UK: an estimation of the current level of control achieved. J Outcomes Res 2005; 9: 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goldberg RB, Kendall DM, Deeg MA, et al. A comparison of lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 1547–1554

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hanefeld M, Marx N, Pfutzner et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of pioglitazone and/or simvastatin in high cardiovascular risk patients with elevated high sensitivity creactive protein. The PIOSTAT Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49 (3): 290–297

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Berhanu P, Kipnes MS, Khan MA, et al. Effects of pioglitazone on lipid and lipoprotein profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone while continuing stable statin therapy. Diab Vase Dis Res 2006; 3 (1): 39–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haffner DM. Dyslipidemia management in adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 Suppl. 1: S58–S71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stynes G, Tilden D, Swift M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone in combination with metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Scotland [poster presentation]. ISPOR 7th Annual European Congress; 2004 Oct 24–26; Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tilden D, Stynes G, Swift M, et al. The value of oral monotherapy alternatives in the first-line treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus [poster presentation]. ISPOR 7th Annual European Congress; 2004 Oct 24–26; Hamburg]

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS 68). Diabetologia 2004 Oct; 47 (10): 1747–1759

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making 2002; 22 (4): 340–349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bagust A, Beale S. Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ 2005; 14: 217–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tilden D, Mariz S, O’Bryan-Tear G, et al. A lifetime modelled economic evaluation comparing pioglitazone and rosiglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (1): 39–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tilden, D.P., Mariz, S., O’Bryan-Tear, G. et al. The Authors’ Reply. Pharmacoeconomics 25, 802–805 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725090-00009

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725090-00009

Keywords

Navigation