Dataset Information

Cost-Comparison Analysis of a Physician-Delivered Step-Count Prescription Strategy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Increments of 1000 steps/d predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) event reductions. In adults with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension, our Step Monitoring to Improve Arterial Health (SMARTER) trial demonstrated a physician-delivered step-count prescription strategy to increase steps by more than this amount over 1 year, compared to usual care. In the present analysis, we aimed to determine the costs of the intervention compared to usual care, incorporating 1-year intervention costs and projected savings from lower CVD hospitalizations over the subsequent 5 years.

Methods

We considered Canadians aged 55 to 74 years with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension. Using time estimates from our trial, we computed nursing costs corresponding to patient support time over 1 year, and pedometer costs for an anticipated 50% of patients without a smartphone. We estimated the number of CVD hospitalizations, the reduction expected with a mean 1000 steps/d increase, and the associated savings. We calculated the net cost (savings), the proportion of patients with their own device required for cost neutrality, and costs (savings) if all patients needed to be provided with a device.

Results

At an average intervention cost of $51.28/patient, the total cost would be $168 million. With an estimated 8875 CVD events prevented, $208 million would be saved. This savings would result in ~$40 million in net savings with 50% device ownership, cost neutrality with 25% device ownership, and ~$42 million in net costs if all patients required the healthcare system to provide a device.

Conclusions

At current levels of smartphone ownership, adoption of the SMARTER strategy is cost-saving to cost-neutral from the healthcare system perspective.

SUBMITTER: Sangarapillai T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8413227 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:With increasing numbers of type 2 diabetes (DM2) and hypertension patients, there is a pressing need for effective, time-efficient and sustainable strategies to help physicians support their patients to achieve higher physical activity levels. SMARTER will determine whether physician-delivered step count prescriptions reduce arterial stiffness over a one-year period, compared with usual care, in sedentary overweight/obese adults with DM2/hypertension.Randomized, allocation-concealed, assessor-blind, multisite clinical trial. The primary outcome is change in arterial stiffness over one year. The secondary outcomes include changes in physical activity, individual vascular risk factors, medication use, and anthropometric parameters. Assessments are at baseline and one year.Participants are sedentary/low active adults with 25???BMI < 40 kg/m2 followed for DM2/hypertension by a collaborating physician. The active arm uses pedometers to track daily step counts and review logs with their physicians at 3 to 4-month intervals. A written step count prescription is provided at each visit, aiming to increase counts by ?3,000 steps/day over one year, with an individualized rate increase. The control arm visits physicians at the same frequency and receives advice to engage in physical activity 30-60 minutes/day. SMARTER will enroll 364 individuals to detect a 10?±?5% difference in arterial stiffness change between arms. Arterial stiffness is assessed noninvasively with carotid femoral pulse wave velocity using applanation tonometry.The importance of SMARTER lies not simply in the use of pedometer-based monitoring but also on its integration into a prescription-based intervention delivered by the treating physician. Equally important is the measurement of impact of this approach on a summative indicator of arterial health, arterial stiffness. If effectiveness is demonstrated, this strategy has strong potential for widespread uptake and implementation, given that it is well-aligned with the structure of current clinical practice.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01475201).

Project description:Importance:It is unclear whether the number of steps per day and the intensity of stepping are associated with lower mortality. Objective:Describe the dose-response relationship between step count and intensity and mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants:Representative sample of US adults aged at least 40 years in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey who wore an accelerometer for up to 7 days ( from 2003-2006). Mortality was ascertained through December 2015. Exposures:Accelerometer-measured number of steps per day and 3 step intensity measures (extended bout cadence, peak 30-minute cadence, and peak 1-minute cadence [steps/min]). Accelerometer data were based on measurements obtained during a 7-day period at baseline. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs), mortality rates, and 95% CIs were estimated using cubic splines and quartile classifications adjusting for age; sex; race/ethnicity; education; diet; smoking status; body mass index; self-reported health; mobility limitations; and diagnoses of diabetes, stroke, heart disease, heart failure, cancer, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema. Results:A total of 4840 participants (mean age, 56.8 years; 2435 [54%] women; 1732 [36%] individuals with obesity) wore accelerometers for a mean of 5.7 days for a mean of 14.4 hours per day. The mean number of steps per day was 9124. There were 1165 deaths over a mean 10.1 years of follow-up, including 406 CVD and 283 cancer deaths. The unadjusted incidence density for all-cause mortality was 76.7 per 1000 person-years (419 deaths) for the 655 individuals who took less than 4000 steps per day; 21.4 per 1000 person-years (488 deaths) for the 1727 individuals who took 4000 to 7999 steps per day; 6.9 per 1000 person-years (176 deaths) for the 1539 individuals who took 8000 to 11?999 steps per day; and 4.8 per 1000 person-years (82 deaths) for the 919 individuals who took at least 12?000 steps per day. Compared with taking 4000 steps per day, taking 8000 steps per day was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.44-0.55]), as was taking 12?000 steps per day (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.45]). Unadjusted incidence density for all-cause mortality by peak 30 cadence was 32.9 per 1000 person-years (406 deaths) for the 1080 individuals who took 18.5 to 56.0 steps per minute; 12.6 per 1000 person-years (207 deaths) for the 1153 individuals who took 56.1 to 69.2 steps per minute; 6.8 per 1000 person-years (124 deaths) for the 1074 individuals who took 69.3 to 82.8 steps per minute; and 5.3 per 1000 person-years (108 deaths) for the 1037 individuals who took 82.9 to 149.5 steps per minute. Greater step intensity was not significantly associated with lower mortality after adjustment for total steps per day (eg, highest vs lowest quartile of peak 30 cadence: HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.65-1.27]; P value for trend?=?.34). Conclusions and Relevance:Based on a representative sample of US adults, a greater number of daily steps was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality. There was no significant association between step intensity and mortality after adjusting for total steps per day.

Project description:IntroductionBT-001 (AspyreRx™) prescription digital therapy, a form of personalized cognitive behavioral therapy, has demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable hemoglobin A1c reductions in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The current study examined the cost-effectiveness of BT-001 plus standard of care (SoC) versus SoC alone in T2D over a lifetime horizon from a healthcare payer perspective.MethodsWe modeled the T2D pathway using an individual patient-level simulation; clinical data were sourced from the intention-to-treat subset of the BT-001 randomized clinical trial (RCT). SoC across both arms included the composition of oral and injectable treatments for T2D. Events were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 risk equation. A 3-month model cycle length was used in the first year, then annual model cycles were used in line with the original risk engine specifications. Patient characteristics informed event equations and Monte Carlo random sampling was used to assess the occurrence of events within each model cycle. Incidence of hypoglycemic events, drug discontinuation, costs, and health utilities and disutility values were sourced from the literature.ResultsFrom a payer perspective, BT-001 plus SoC versus SoC alone was dominant with a gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.101 and cost savings of $7343 per patient over the lifetime horizon (i.e., more effective and less costly). BT-001 plus SoC was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY (incremental net monetary benefit was $17,443). Savings with BT-001 were primarily driven by a reduction in drug acquisition costs. The reduction in hemoglobin A1c with BT-001 was associated with fewer T2D complications.ConclusionsBT-001 plus SoC was estimated to dominate SoC alone over the lifetime horizon from a payer perspective, suggesting that using BT-001 can empower patients to better manage their diabetes with the potential for lifelong advantages.