Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting lifestyle change for the prevention of diabetes in a Swedish primary care and community based prevention program.

ABSTRACT: Policymakers need to know the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a T2D prevention initiative targeting weight reduction, increased physical activity and healthier diet in persons in pre-diabetic states by comparing a hypothetical intervention versus no intervention in a Swedish setting.A Markov model was used to study the cost-effectiveness of a T2D prevention program based on lifestyle change versus a control group where no prevention was applied. Analyses were done deterministically and probabilistically based on Monte Carlo simulation for six different scenarios defined by sex and age groups (30, 50, 70 years). Cost and quality adjusted life year (QALY) differences between no intervention and intervention and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and visualized in cost-effectiveness planes (CE planes) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEA curves).All ICERs were cost-effective and ranged from 3833 €/QALY gained (women, 30 years) to 9215 €/QALY gained (men, 70 years). The CEA curves showed that the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at the threshold value of 50,000 € per QALY gained was very high for all scenarios ranging from 85.0 to 91.1%.The prevention or the delay of the onset of T2D is feasible and cost-effective. A small investment in healthy lifestyle with change in physical activity and diet together with weight loss are very likely to be cost-effective.

SUBMITTER: Neumann A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5533851 | biostudies-other | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting lifestyle change for the prevention of diabetes in a Swedish primary care and community based prevention program.

Neumann Anne A Lindholm Lars L Norberg Margareta M Schoffer Olaf O Klug Stefanie J SJ Norström Fredrik F

The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care 20161202 7

<h4>Background</h4>Policymakers need to know the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a T2D prevention initiative targeting weight reduction, increased physical activity and healthier diet in persons in pre-diabetic states by comparing a hypothetical intervention versus no intervention in a Swedish setting.<h4>Methods</h4>A Markov model was used to study the cost-effectiveness of a T2D preventi ...[more]

PMID: 27913943

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: In 2018, the global estimate of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases among women totaled 2.1 million. The economic and social burden that breast cancer places on societies has propelled research that analyzes the role of modifiable risk factors as the primary prevention methods. Healthy behavior changes, moderated alcohol intake, healthy body weight, and regular physical activity may decrease the risk of breast cancer among women. This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle-related interventions for the primary prevention of breast cancer in order to answer the question on whether implementing interventions focused on behavior changes are worth the value for money. Methods: A rapid review was performed using search terms developed by the research team. The articles were retrieved from MEDLINE and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, with an additional web search in Google and Google Scholar. Comparisons were performed on the cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year between the interventions using a league table, and the likelihood of cost-effective interventions for breast cancer primary prevention was analyzed. Results: Six studies were selected. The median cost-effectiveness ratio (in 2018 USD) was $24,973, and 80% of the interventions had a ratio below the $50,000 threshold. The low-fat-diet program for postmenopausal women was cost-effective at a societal level, and the physical activity interventions, such as the Be Active Program in the UK, had the best cost saving results. A total of 11 of the 25 interventions ranked either as highly or very highly likely to be cost-effective for breast cancer primary preventions. Conclusion: Although the review had some limitations due to using only a few studies, it showed evidence that diet-related and physical-activity-related interventions for the primary prevention of breast cancer were cost-effective. Many of the cost-effective interventions aimed to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases alongside breast cancer.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lifestyle change interventions (LCI) for prevention of type 2 diabetes are covered by Medicare, but rarely by US Medicaid programs that constitute the largest public payer system in the USA. We estimate the long-term health and economic implications of implementing LCIs in state Medicaid programs. METHODS:We compared LCIs modeled after the intervention of the Diabetes Prevention Program versus routine care advice using a decision analytic simulation model and best available data from representative surveys, cohort studies, Medicaid claims data, and the published literature. Target population were non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 years at high risk for type 2 diabetes (BMI ?25 kg/m2 and HbA1c ? 5.7% or fasting plasma glucose ? 110 mg/dl) from eight study states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma) that represent around 50% of the US Medicaid population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured in cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and population cost and health impact were modeled from a healthcare system perspective and a narrow Medicaid perspective. RESULTS:In the eight selected study states, 1.9 million or 18% of non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries would belong to the eligible high-risk target population - 66% of them Hispanics or non-Hispanic black. In the base-case analysis, the aggregated 5- and 10-year ICERs are US$226 k/QALY and US$34 k/QALY; over 25 years, the intervention dominates routine care. The 5-, 10-, and 25-year probabilities that the ICERs are below US$50 k (US$100 k)/QALY are 6% (15%), 59% (82%) and 96% (100%). From a healthcare system perspective, initial program investments of US$800 per person would be offset after 13 years and translate to US$548 of savings after 25 years. With a 20% LCI uptake in eligible beneficiaries, this would translate to upfront costs of US$300 million, prevent 260 thousand years of diabetes and save US$205 million over a 25-year time horizon. Cost savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller. Minorities and low-income groups would over-proportionally benefit from LCIs in Medicaid, but the impact on population health and health equity would be marginal. CONCLUSIONS:In the long-term, investments in LCIs for Medicaid beneficiaries are likely to improve health and to decrease healthcare expenditures. However, population health and health equity impact would be low and healthcare expenditure savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller than from a healthcare system perspective.

Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes is a significant public health concern. With the completion of the Diabetes Prevention Program, there has been a proliferation of studies attempting to translate this evidence base into practice. However, the cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of these adapted interventions is unknown.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to synthesize the effectiveness, cost, and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle diabetes prevention interventions and compare effects by intervention delivery agent (dietitian vs non-dietitian) and channel (in-person vs technology-delivered).MethodsEnglish and full-text research articles published up to July 2015 were identified using the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Education Resources Information Center, CAB Direct, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Sixty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Most employed both dietary and physical activity intervention components (four of 69 were diet-only interventions). Changes in weight, fasting and 2-hour blood glucose concentration, and hemoglobin A1c were extracted from each article. Heterogeneity was measured by the I2 index, and study-specific effect sizes or mean differences were pooled using a random effects model when heterogeneity was confirmed.ResultsParticipants receiving intervention with nutrition education experienced a reduction of 2.07 kg (95% CI 1.52 to 2.62; P<0.001; I2=90.99%, 95% CI 88.61% to 92.87%) in weight at 12 months with effect sizes over time ranging from small (0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30; P=0.012; I2= 86.83%, 95% CI 80.42% to 91.14%) to medium (0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82; P<0.001; I2=98.75%, 95% CI 98.52% to 98.94). Effect sizes for 2-hour blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c level changes ranged from small to medium. The meta-regression analysis revealed a larger relative weight loss in dietitian-delivered interventions than in those delivered by nondietitians (full sample: -1.0 kg; US subsample: -2.4 kg), and did not find statistical evidence that the delivery channel was an important predictor of weight loss. The average cost per kilogram weight loss ranged from $34.06 over 6 months to $1,005.36 over 12 months. The cost of intervention per participant delivered by dietitians was lower than interventions delivered by non-dietitians, although few studies reported costs.ConclusionsLifestyle interventions are effective in reducing body weight and glucose-related outcomes. Dietitian-delivered interventions, compared with those delivered by other personnel, achieved greater weight reduction. No consistent trend was identified across different delivery channels.

Project description:BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a randomized, controlled clinical trial. It demonstrated that among high-risk individuals with impaired glucose tolerance, diabetes incidence was reduced by 58 % with lifestyle intervention and 31 % with metformin compared to placebo. During the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS), all DPP participants were unmasked to their treatment assignments, the original lifestyle intervention group was offered additional lifestyle support, the metformin group continued metformin, and all three groups were offered a group-implemented lifestyle intervention. Over the 10 years of combined DPP/DPPOS follow-up, diabetes incidence was reduced by 34 % in the lifestyle group and 18 % in the metformin group compared to placebo. The purpose of this article is to review and synthesize analyses published by the DPP/DPPOS Research Group that have described the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention.MethodsWe describe the resource utilization and costs of the DPP and DPPOS interventions, the costs of non-intervention-related medical care, the impact of the interventions on diabetes progression and quality-of-life, and the cost-effectiveness of the interventions from health system and societal perspectives. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed with a 3-year time horizon using DPP data, a lifetime time horizon that simulated 3-year DPP data, and a 10-year time horizon using combined DPP/DPPOS data.ResultsAlthough more expensive than the placebo intervention, the greater costs of the lifestyle and metformin interventions were offset by reductions in the costs of nonintervention-related medical care. Every year after randomization, quality-of-life was better for participants in the lifestyle intervention compared to those in the metformin or placebo intervention. In both the simulated lifetime analysis and the 10-year within trial economic analysis, lifestyle and metformin were extremely cost-effective (that is, improved outcomes at a low incremental cost) or even cost-saving (that is, improved outcomes and reduced total costs) compared to the placebo intervention.ConclusionsThe implementation of diabetes prevention programs in high-risk individuals will result in important health benefits and represents a good value for money.Trial registrationNCT00004992 (DPP) and NCT00038727 (DPPOS).

Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting lifestyle change for the prevention of diabetes in a Swedish primary care and community based prevention program.

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting lifestyle change for the prevention of diabetes in a Swedish primary care and community based prevention program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets