Cost-effectiveness of intensified versus conventional multifactorial intervention in type 2 diabetes: results and projections from the Steno-2 study

Peter Gaede, William J Valentine, Andrew J Palmer, Daniel M D Tucker, Morten Lammert, Hans-Henrik Parving, Oluf Pedersen, Peter Gaede, William J Valentine, Andrew J Palmer, Daniel M D Tucker, Morten Lammert, Hans-Henrik Parving, Oluf Pedersen

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus conventional therapy for 8 years as applied in the Steno-2 study in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.

Research design and methods: A Markov model was developed to incorporate event and risk data from Steno-2 and account Danish-specific costs to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and lifetime direct medical costs expressed in year 2005 Euros. Clinical and cost outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes and discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Intensive treatment was associated with increased life expectancy, QALE, and lifetime costs compared with conventional treatment. Mean +/- SD undiscounted life expectancy was 18.1 +/- 7.9 years with intensive treatment and 16.2 +/- 7.3 years with conventional treatment (difference 1.9 years). Discounted life expectancy was 13.4 +/- 4.8 years with intensive treatment and 12.4 +/- 4.5 years with conventional treatment. Lifetime costs (discounted) for intensive and conventional treatment were euro45,521 +/- 19,697 and euro41,319 +/- 27,500, respectively (difference euro4,202). Increased costs with intensive treatment were due to increased pharmacy and consultation costs. Discounted QALE was 1.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) higher for intensive (10.2 +/- 3.6 QALYs) versus conventional (8.6 +/- 2.7 QALYs) treatment, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro2,538 per QALY gained. This is considered a conservative estimate because accounting prescription of generic drugs and capturing indirect costs would further favor intensified therapy.

Conclusions: From a health care payer perspective in Denmark, intensive therapy was more cost-effective than conventional treatment. Assuming that patients in both arms were treated in a primary care setting, intensive therapy became dominant (cost- and lifesaving).

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00320008.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Acceptability curve from base case analysis.

References

    1. Saydah SH, Eberhardt MS, Loria CM, Brancati FL: Age and the burden of death attributable to diabetes in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 156:714–719, 2002
    1. Jönsson B, CODE-2 Advisory Board: Revealing the cost of Type II diabetes in Europe. Diabetologia 45:S5–S12, 2002.
    1. American Diabetes Association: National Diabetes Fact Sheet [article online], 2005. Available from . Accessed 19 February 2007
    1. American Diabetes association. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 26(Suppl. 1):S33–S50, 2003
    1. Gæde P, Vedel P, Larsen N, Jensen GV, Parving HH, Pedersen O: Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 348:383–393, 2003
    1. Mogensen CE: Microalbuminuria predicts clinical proteinuria and early mortality in maturity-onset diabetes. N Engl J Med 310:356–360, 1984
    1. Gall MA, Borch-Johnsen K, Hougaard P, Nielsen FS, Parving HH: Albuminuria and poor glycemic control predict mortality in NIDDM. Diabetes 44:1303–1309, 1995
    1. Naimark D, Krahn MD, Naglie G, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS: Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 5-Working with Markov processes. Med Decis Making 17:152–159, 1997
    1. Briggs AH: Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17:479–500, 2000
    1. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR: Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 13:322–338, 1993
    1. Leibson CL, O'Brien PC, Atkinson E, Palumbo PJ, Melton LJ III: Relative contributions of incidence and survival to increasing prevalence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus: a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol 146:12–22, 1997
    1. Kannel WB, D'Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Belanger AJ, Wilson PW, Levy D: Profile for estimating risk of heart failure. Arch Intern Med 159:1197–1204, 1999
    1. Stevens RJ, Kothari V, Adler AI, Stratton IM, Holman RR: The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in Type II diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci 101:671–679, 2001
    1. Kothari V, Stevens RJ, Adler AI, Stratton IM, Manley SE, Neil HA, Holman RR: UKPDS 60: risk of stroke in type 2 diabetes estimated by the UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine. Stroke 33:1776–1781, 2002
    1. Murabito JM, D'Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Wilson WF: Intermittent claudication: a risk profile from The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 96:44–49, 1997
    1. Sundhedsstyrelsen, Center for Evaluering og Medicinsk Teknologivurdering. Type 2 diabetes. Medicinsk teknologivurdering af screening, diagnostik og behandling. Copenhagen, Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2003
    1. 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 22:340–349, 2002
    1. Tarn T, Smith M: Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. ISPOR Connections 10:5–15, 2004
    1. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ: Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 6:327–340, 1997
    1. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 10:779–787, 2001
    1. Heslet L, Andersen JS, Keiding H: Metoder til sundhedsøkonomisk evaluering af intensive terapi. Ugeskr Læger 169:721–724, 2007. [in Danish]
    1. Clarke P, Gray A, Adler A, Stevens R, Raikou M, Cull C, Stratton I, Holman R, UKPDS Group, United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin in overweight patients with type II diabetes (UKPDS No. 51). Diabetologia 44:298–304, 2001
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. BMJ 317:720–726, 1998.
    1. Jönsson B, Cook JR, Pedersen TR: The cost-effectiveness of lipid lowering in patients with diabetes: results from the 4S trial. Diabetologia 42:1293–1301, 1999
    1. CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Group: Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 287:2542–51, 2002.
    1. Danish National Health Board: Takstsystem 2005: Vejledning [article online], 2006. Available from . Accessed 19 February 2007
    1. Tengs TO, Wallace A: One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38:583–637, 2000
    1. Bagust A, Beale S: Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ 14:217–230, 2005
    1. Scuffham PA, Chaplin S: A cost-effectiveness analysis of fluvastatin in patients with diabetes after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Clin Ther 27:1467–1477, 2005
    1. Author: Harvard Preference Scores 1998–2001 [article online], 2002. Available from . Accessed 19 February 2007

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する