OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe an approach to modeling the efficiency of an intervention by focusing on an established intermediate end point directly. A case study addresses the economic efficiency of obtaining dual glycemic control over time, according to initial choice of treatment. METHODS: From the perspective of a payer in the United States, instead of the usual approach of basing the model on projecting long-term diabetic complications from glycemic control, this model focuses directly on glycemic control. Treatment changes and associated health-care utilization needed to address postprandial glucose. After assigning each of 10000 drug-naïve patients, HbA1c, age, race, and sex based on distributions from a randomized clinical trial, the model applies the efficacy of nateglinide compared to metformin. Sensitivity analyses were carried out for all parameters. Costs are reported in year 2000 US dollars and discounted at 3%. RESULTS: In the base case, starting on nateglinide and increasing the time in dual glycemic control over 3 years by 2.4 months led to savings of US dollars 295 compared to starting on metformin. Savings increased with stricter treatment criteria but decreased if glycemic control was better initially. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the use of an efficiency model that focuses directly on the relevant short-term end point: glycemic control. Starting patients with nateglinide is shown to be an efficient way of obtaining dual glycemic control during the first 3 years of treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe an approach to modeling the efficiency of an intervention by focusing on an established intermediate end point directly. A case study addresses the economic efficiency of obtaining dual glycemic control over time, according to initial choice of treatment. METHODS: From the perspective of a payer in the United States, instead of the usual approach of basing the model on projecting long-term diabetic complications from glycemic control, this model focuses directly on glycemic control. Treatment changes and associated health-care utilization needed to address postprandial glucose. After assigning each of 10000 drug-naïve patients, HbA1c, age, race, and sex based on distributions from a randomized clinical trial, the model applies the efficacy of nateglinide compared to metformin. Sensitivity analyses were carried out for all parameters. Costs are reported in year 2000 US dollars and discounted at 3%. RESULTS: In the base case, starting on nateglinide and increasing the time in dual glycemic control over 3 years by 2.4 months led to savings of US dollars 295 compared to starting on metformin. Savings increased with stricter treatment criteria but decreased if glycemic control was better initially. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the use of an efficiency model that focuses directly on the relevant short-term end point: glycemic control. Starting patients with nateglinide is shown to be an efficient way of obtaining dual glycemic control during the first 3 years of treatment.