Concerns have been raised about the objectivity of a new report released today into type 2 diabetes which received the support of the Pharmacy Guild.
The research from University of Canberra's National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) predicted that one in seven Australians would be suffering from type 2 diabetes in 2050.
Sponsored by drug maker Eli Lilly, the report estimated that 7.2 per cent of adults – twice the current level – would be diagnosed with the disease by mid-century while a further seven per cent would be living with the disease undiagnosed.
NATSEM researchers made the projections by modelling five initiatives currently used for patients with type 2 diabetes, which included assessment of new incretin mimetic diabetic drugs and data from the Pharmacy Guild's Diabetes Medication Assistance Service.
"In line with the report findings, we believe community pharmacists are certainly well placed to play an expanded and cost-effective role helping Australians with type 2 diabetes monitor their condition and ensure their treatments are being used appropriately," Pharmacy Guild national councillor Toni Riley said.
However, according to University of Adelaide psychiatrist Dr Jon Jureidini, chairman of Healthy Skepticism, a group that campaigns against pharmaceutical marketing, the report could be compromised by Eli Lilly's incretin mimetic drug Byetta (exenatide).
"The report is surprisingly favourable towards an Eli Lilly product which hasn't even been able to get across the hurdle of a PBS listing," Dr Jureidini told Pharmacy News.
"It does raise concerns about the possibility that this was a biased study and the people who were modelling the impact of this drug, the kind of assumptions that they fit into the model, were overly favourable towards this drug.
"I'm not saying that I have evidence that that what's happened. I would be reluctant to accept the findings of this study until I could be reassured that bias hadn't played a card in the outcome."
The report concluded that new pharmaceuticals with no alternatives would prevent complications from type 2 diabetes better than the other four interventions – 109.8 preventions per 1,000 participants compared with 67.7 from improving medicine use and 35 from pharmaceuticals with substitution.
New pharmaceuticals with no alternatives were also predicted to offer the highest cost savings – on average $730.55 per person compared with $179.38 from pharmaceuticals with alternatives and $476.07 from improving medicine use.
"All five interventions showed benefits over the long-term, improving levels of diabetes control, reducing the number of complications and therefore the health burden," NATSEM health research director Professor Laurie Brown said.