Putri Sumiyati, Eva Nurinda, Sofyan Indrayana, Eliza Dwinta

Analisis Efektivitas Biaya Pengobatan DM Nefropati di RSUD Panembahan Senopati Bantul

Introduction

Analisis efektivitas biaya pengobatan dm nefropati di rsud panembahan senopati bantul. Analisis efektivitas biaya pengobatan DM Nefropati di RSUD Panembahan Senopati Bantul. Temukan bahwa terapi non-insulin lebih hemat biaya & efektif dibanding insulin untuk pasien nefropati diabetik.

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus is a group of metabolic diseases characterized by increased blood glucose. Diabetes mellitus can cause various chronic complications, one of which is diabetic nephropathy. The number of uses of treatment will cause differences in the effectiveness and cost of therapy.This study determined the cost effectiveness of nephropathy DM treatment in the Inpatient Ward of Panembahan Senopati Hospital, Bantul. This study was an analytic observational study with retrospective. Data collectional by looking at medical record and administrative data. As many as 63 respondent were inclusion criteria. The data obtained were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Treatment effectiveness was measured based on patients who achieved ≤200 mg/dL Current Blood Sugar (GDS), while cost effectiveness was measured based on ACER and ICER values. The results showed that the effectiveness of drug B (non-insulin) was 88%, while drug A (insulin) was 85%. The average total cost of anti-diabetic drug B (non- insulin) is Rp. 839,563, and drug A (insulin) Rp. 1,163,473. drug group B (non- insulin) is more cost effective with an ACER value of Rp. 954,048, compared to drug A (insulin) of 1,368,791, in nephropathy DM patients at Panembahan Senopati Hospital, Bantul. The conclusion of this study shows that drug therapy group B (non- insulin) can be used as a cheaper and more effective treatment option for nephropathy DM patients

Review

The study, "Analisis Efektivitas Biaya Pengobatan DM Nefropati di RSUD Panembahan Senopati Bantul," addresses a highly pertinent issue in clinical practice and health economics: the cost-effectiveness of managing diabetic nephropathy. Given the escalating prevalence of diabetes and its severe complications, understanding optimal, resource-efficient treatment strategies is crucial for healthcare systems, particularly in regional hospitals. The clear objective to compare insulin (Drug A) and non-insulin (Drug B) therapies for diabetic nephropathy patients in an inpatient setting is commendable, providing direct insights relevant to local clinical decision-making and resource allocation at Panembahan Senopati Hospital. Methodologically, the study employed an analytic observational retrospective design, utilizing medical records and administrative data from 63 respondents to determine cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was primarily measured by the proportion of patients achieving a Current Blood Sugar (GDS) of ≤200 mg/dL, and cost-effectiveness was assessed using ACER and ICER values. The findings indicate that Drug B (non-insulin) demonstrated slightly higher effectiveness (88% vs. 85%) at a significantly lower average total cost (Rp. 839,563 vs. Rp. 1,163,473) compared to Drug A (insulin). Consequently, Drug B was identified as more cost-effective with a lower ACER value, suggesting a more efficient use of resources for blood sugar control in the studied population. While the study provides valuable preliminary data suggesting that non-insulin therapy (Drug B) may be a cheaper and more effective option for GDS control in diabetic nephropathy patients at this specific hospital, several limitations warrant consideration. Crucially, defining effectiveness solely by GDS ≤200 mg/dL, while important, may not fully capture the long-term clinical benefits or the progression of *nephropathy*, which is the focus of the title. Future research should consider incorporating direct renal outcomes such as eGFR stabilization, proteinuria reduction, or even hard outcomes like delay in dialysis initiation. Additionally, the retrospective nature and single-center inpatient data limit generalizability, and a more detailed breakdown of the "total cost" components (e.g., medication, labs, hospitalization days, physician fees) would enhance the robustness of the cost analysis. Further prospective studies with larger cohorts and more comprehensive clinical and economic endpoints are recommended to validate these findings and strengthen their applicability beyond the immediate study context.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.