Dataset Information

Delivering the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cost effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the long term clinical and cost effectiveness of the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) intervention compared with usual care in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Design

We undertook a cost-utility analysis that used data from a 12 month, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial and, using the Sheffield type 2 diabetes model, modelled long term outcomes in terms of use of therapies, incidence of complications, mortality, and associated effect on costs and health related quality of life. A further cost-utility analysis was also conducted using current "real world" costs of delivering the intervention estimated for a hypothetical primary care trust.

Setting

Primary care trusts in the United Kingdom.

Participants

Patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Intervention

A six hour structured group education programme delivered in the community by two professional healthcare educators.

Main outcome measures

Incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

Results

On the basis of the data in the trial, the estimated mean incremental lifetime cost per person receiving the DESMOND intervention is pound209 (95% confidence interval - pound704 to pound1137; euro251, -euro844 to euro1363; $326, -$1098 to $1773), the incremental gain in QALYs per person is 0.0392 (-0.0813 to 0.1786), and the mean incremental cost per QALY is pound5387. Using "real world" intervention costs, the lifetime incremental cost of the DESMOND intervention is pound82 (- pound831 to pound1010) and the mean incremental cost per QALY gained is pound2092. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the likelihood that the DESMOND programme is cost effective at a threshold of pound20 000 per QALY is 66% using trial based intervention costs and 70% using "real world" costs. Results from a one way sensitivity analysis suggest that the DESMOND intervention is cost effective even under more modest assumptions that include the effects of the intervention being lost after one year.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the DESMOND intervention is likely to be cost effective compared with usual care, especially with respect to the real world cost of the intervention to primary care trusts, with reductions in weight and smoking being the main benefits delivered.

SUBMITTER: Gillett M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2924963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies have revolutionized the treatment of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSDME); yet these agents are expensive, and whether they are cost-effective is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CSDME: focal laser photocoagulation alone (L), focal laser plus intravitreal ranibizumab (L+R), focal laser plus intravitreal bevacizumab (L+B), or focal laser plus intravitreal triamcinolone (L+T) injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 57-year-old patients with newly diagnosed CSDME.MethodsBy using a Markov model with a 25-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating patients with newly diagnosed CSDME using L, L+R, L+B, or L+T. Data came from the DRCRnet randomized controlled trial, the Medicare fee schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with L, the incremental cost-effectiveness of L+R and L+B was $89903/QALY and $11138/QALY, respectively. L+T was dominated by L. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $50000/QALY, L was approximately 70% likely to be the preferred therapy over L+R and L+T. However, at a WTP of $100000/QALY, more than 90% of the time, L+R therapy was the preferred therapy compared with L and L+T. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, L+B was found to be the preferred therapy over L and L+T for any WTP value >$10000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the annual risk of cerebrovascular accident would have to be at least 1.5% higher with L+B than with L+R for L+R to be the preferred treatment. In another sensitivity analysis, if patients require <8 injections per year over the remainder of the 25-year time horizon, L+B would cost <$100000/QALY, whereas L+R would be cost-effective at a WTP of $100000/QALY if patients require fewer than 0.45 injections per year after year 2.ConclusionsWith bevacizumab and ranibizumab assumed to have equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles when used in the management of CSDME, bevacizumab therapy confers the greatest value among the different treatment options for CSDME.Financial disclosure(s)The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Project description:PurposeWe sought to determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.MethodsUsing a mathematical model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2 357/QALY. Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab, meaning it was more costly and less effective. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be ≥2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by 1 category (e.g., from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but every patient receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.ConclusionsEven after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.

Project description:Six oral medication classes have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Although all of these agents effectively lower blood glucose, the evidence supporting their impact on other clinical events is variable. There also are substantial cost differences between agents. We aimed to evaluate temporal trends in the use of specific drugs for the initial management of type 2 diabetes and to estimate the economic consequences of non-recommended care.We studied a cohort of 254,973 patients, aged 18 to 100 years, who were newly initiated on oral hypoglycemic monotherapy between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2008, by using prescription claims data from a large pharmacy benefit manager. Linear regression models were used to assess whether medication initiation patterns changed over time. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to identify independent predictors of receiving initial therapy with metformin. We then measured the economic consequences of prescribing patterns by drug class for both patients and the insurer.Over the course of the study period, the proportion of patients initially treated with metformin increased from 51% to 65%, whereas those receiving sulfonylureas decreased from 26% to 18% (P<.001 for both). There was a significant decline in the use of thiazolidinediones (20.1%-8.3%, P<.001) and an increase in prescriptions for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (0.4%-7.3%, P<.001). Younger patients, women, and patients receiving drug benefits through Medicare were least likely to initiate treatment with metformin. Combined patient and insurer spending for patients who were initiated on alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors was $677 over a 6-month period compared with $116 and $118 for patients initiated on metformin or a sulfonylurea, respectively, a cost difference of approximately $1120 annually per patient.Approximately 35% of patients initiating an oral hypoglycemic drug did not receive recommended initial therapy with metformin. These practice patterns also have substantial implications for health care spending.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can improve glycaemic control or even achieve remission through weight loss and reduce their use of medication and risk of cardiovascular disease. The Glucose Lowering through Weight management (GLoW) trial will evaluate whether a tailored diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme (DEW) is more effective and cost-effective than a diabetes education (DE) programme in helping people with overweight or obesity and a recent diagnosis of T2D to lower their blood glucose, lose weight and improve other markers of cardiovascular risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This study is a pragmatic, randomised, single-blind, parallel group, two-arm, superiority trial. We will recruit 576 adults with body mass index>25 kg/m2 and diagnosis of T2D in the past 3 years and randomise them to a tailored DEW or a DE programme. Participants will attend measurement appointments at a local general practitioner practice or research centre at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is 12-month change in glycated haemoglobin. The effect of the intervention on the primary outcome will be estimated and tested using a linear regression model (analysis of covariance) including randomisation group and adjusted for baseline value of the outcome and the randomisation stratifiers. Participants will be included in the group to which they were randomised, under the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes include 6-month and 12-month changes in body weight, body fat percentage, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and lipid profile; probability of achieving good glycaemic control; probability of achieving remission from diabetes; probability of losing 5% and 10% body weight and modelled cardiovascular risk (UKPDS). An intention-to-treat within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from NHS and societal perspectives using participant-level data. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants to understand why and how the programme achieved its results and how participants manage their weight after the programme ends. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was received from East of Scotland Research Ethics Service on 15 May 2018 (18/ES/0048). This protocol (V.3) was approved on 19 June 2019. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and communicated to other stakeholders as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN18399564.