Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of home versus hospital management of children at onset of type 1 diabetes: the DECIDE randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this economic evaluation was to assess whether home management could represent a cost-effective strategy in the patient pathway of type 1 diabetes (T1D). This is based on the Delivering Early Care In Diabetes Evaluation trial (ISRCTN78114042), which compared home versus hospital management from diagnosis in childhood diabetes and found no statistically significant difference in glycaemic control at 24 months.

Design

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Eight paediatric diabetes centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Participants

203 clinically well children aged under 17 years, with newly diagnosed T1D and their carers.

Outcome measures

The base-case analysis adopted n National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A scenario analysis assessed costs from a broader societal perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per mmol/mol reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), was based on the mean difference in costs between the home and hospital groups, divided by mean differences in effectiveness (HbA1c). Uncertainty was considered in terms of the probability of cost-effectiveness.

Results

At 24 months postintervention, the base-case analysis showed a difference in costs between home and hospital, in favour of home management (mean difference -£2,217; 95% CI -£2825 to -£1,609; p<0.001). Home care dominated, with an ICER of £7434 (saved) per mmol/mol reduction of HbA1c. The results of the scenario analysis also favoured home management. The greatest driver of cost differences was hospitalisation during the initiation period.

Conclusions

Home management from diagnosis of children with T1D who are medically stable represents a less costly approach for the NHS in the UK, without impacting clinical effectiveness.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN78114042.

SUBMITTER: McCarroll Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8137197 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether, in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes who were not acutely unwell, management at home for initiation of insulin treatment and education of the child and family, would result in improved clinical and psychological outcomes at 2?years postdiagnosis.DesignA multicentre randomised controlled trial (January 2008/October 2013).SettingEight paediatric diabetes centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.Participants203 clinically well children aged under 17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and their carers.InterventionManagement of the initiation period from diagnosis at home, for a minimum of 3?days, to include at least six supervised injections and delivery of pragmatic educational care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration at 24 months postdiagnosis. Secondary outcomes included coping, anxiety, quality of life and use of NHS resources.Results203 children, newly diagnosed, were randomised to commence management at home (n=101) or in hospital (n=102). At the 24?month primary end point, there was one withdrawal and a follow-up rate of 194/202 (96%). Mean HbA1c in the home treatment arm was 72.1?mmol/mol and in the hospital treated arm 72.6?mmol/mol. There was a negligible difference between the mean HbA1c levels in the two arms adjusted for baseline (1.01, 95%?CI 0.93 to 1.09). There were mostly no differences in secondary outcomes at 24 months, apart from better child self-esteem in the home-arm. No home-arm children were admitted to hospital during initiation and there were no adverse events at that time. The number of investigations was higher in hospital patients during the follow-up period. There were no differences in insulin regimens between the two arms.ConclusionsThere is no evidence of a difference between home-based and hospital-based initiation of care in children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes across relevant outcomes.Trial registration numberISRCTN78114042.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of standardised self-management kits for children with type 1 diabetes.DesignPragmatic trial with randomisation ratio of two intervention: one control. Qualitative process evaluation.Setting11 diabetes clinics in England and Wales.ParticipantsBetween February 2010 and August 2011, we validly randomised 308 children aged 6-18 years; 201 received the intervention.InterventionWe designed kits to empower children to achieve glycaemic control, notably by recording blood glucose and titrating insulin. The comparator was usual treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES AT 3 AND 6 MONTHS: Primary: Diabetes Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Secondary: HbA1c; General PedsQL; EQ-5D; healthcare resource use.ResultsOf the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions, Worry showed adjusted scores significantly favouring self-management kits at 3 months (mean child-reported difference =+5.87; Standard error[SE]=2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]) from +1.57 to +10.18; p=0.008); but Treatment Adherence significantly favoured controls at 6 months (mean child-reported difference=-4.68; SE=1.74; 95%CI from -8.10 to -1.25; p=0.008). Intervention children reported significantly worse changes between 3 and 6 months on four of the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions and on the total score (mean difference=-3.20; SE=1.33; 95% CI from -5.73 to -0.67; p=0.020). There was no evidence of change in HbA1c; only 18% of participants in each group achieved recommended levels at 6 months. No serious adverse reactions attributable to the intervention or its absence were reported.Use of kits was poor. Few children or parents associated blood glucose readings with better glycaemic control. The kits, costing £185, alienated many children and parents.ConclusionsStandardised kits showed no evidence of benefit, inhibited diabetes self-management and increased worry. Future research should study relationships between children and professionals, and seek new methods of helping children and parents to manage diabetes.Trial registration numberISRCTN17551624.

Project description:BackgroundPractices regarding hospitalisation of children at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes vary both within countries and internationally, and high-quality evidence of best practice is scarce. The objective of this study was to close some of the gaps in evidence by comparing two alternative regimens for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: hospital-based care and hospital-based home care (HBHC), referring to specialist care in a home-based setting.MethodsA randomised controlled trial, including 60 children aged 3-15 years, took place at a university hospital in Sweden. When the children were medically stable, they were randomised to either the traditional, hospital-based care or to HBHC.ResultsTwo years after diagnosis there were no differences in HbA1c (p = 0.777), in episodes of severe hypoglycaemia (p = 0.167), or in insulin U/kg/24 h (p = 0.269). Over 24 months, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in how parents' reported the impact of paediatric chronic health condition on family (p = 0.138) or in parents' self-reported health-related quality of life (p = 0.067). However, there was a statistically significant difference regarding healthcare satisfaction, favouring HBHC (p = 0.002). In total, healthcare costs (direct costs) were significantly lower in the HBHC group but no statistically significant difference between the two groups in estimated lost production (indirect costs) for the family as a whole. Whereas mothers had a significantly lower value of lost production, when their children were treated within the HBHC regime, fathers had a higher, but not a significantly higher value. The results indicate that HBHC might be a cost-effective strategy in a healthcare sector perspective. When using the wider societal perspective, no difference in cost effectiveness or cost utility was found.ConclusionsOverall, there are only a few, well-designed and controlled studies that compare hospital care to different models of home care. The results of this study provide empirical support for the safety and feasibility of HBHC when a child is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Our results further indicate that the model of care may have an impact on families' daily living, not only during the initial period of care but for a longer period of time.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov with identity number NCT00804232 , December 2008.

Project description:BackgroundA three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C?+?P), Biological with best practice prevention (B?+?P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA).MethodsData on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%.ResultsA total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C?+?P n?=?352, B?+?P n?=?352, PA n?=?354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36?months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI: -£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B?+?P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (-?0.06; 97.5% CI: -?0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (-?0.14; 97.5% CI: -?0.29 to 0.71) in B?+?P compared to PA. C?+?P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B?+?P.ConclusionsThe mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B?+?P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B?+?P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%.Trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

Project description:IntroductionIn recent years, the role of pharmacists has undergone significant transformation to become more patient-centered and involved in managing chronic diseases. Nonetheless, it remains unclear whether pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is cost-effective. This study aimed to systematically review the cost-effectiveness and reporting quality in comprehensive economic evaluations of pharmacist management compared to standard care in diabetes.MethodsEligible studies included cost-effectiveness analyses employing pharmacist professional services as the intervention for diabetes. A literature search was conducted in the bibliographic databases Pubmed, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database from their inception until July 2023. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, full-text screening, and data abstraction and assessed the quality of reporting and methodological approaches using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) checklists.ResultsTwelve studies were identified with an average research quality score of 19.8, including cost-utility (n = 5) and cost-effectiveness (n = 7) analyses, with only four studies rated as high quality. The efficacy data were derived from randomized controlled trials (n = 7), retrospective studies (n = 2), and published literature sources (n = 2). Half of the included studies were conducted in high-income countries, while the other half was in upper-middle and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. Despite significant variations in the cost of pharmacist intervention, consistent findings demonstrate that pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is more cost-effective or even cost-saving than standard care, primarily attributed to better glycemic control, enhanced patient compliance, and reduced risks of medication-related problems.ConclusionThis systematic review substantiates that pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is cost-effective compared with standard care. However, the overall quality of reporting needs to be improved, and high-quality evidence is urgently needed to support healthcare decision-making in pharmacy practice.

Project description:IntroductionPeople 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 analysisThis 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 disseminationEthical 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 numberISRCTN18399564.