A Icks1, W Rathmann, B Haastert, A Gandjour, R Holle, J John, G Giani. 1. Institute of Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Centre, Leibniz Institute at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. icks@ddz.uni-duesseldorf.de
Abstract
AIMS: To analyse the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the primary prevention of Type 2 diabetes in a 'real world' routine healthcare setting using population-based data (KORA Survey in Augsburg, Germany, total population approximately 600,000). METHODS: Decision analytic model, time horizon 3 years. INTERVENTIONS: Staff education, targeted screening and lifestyle modification or metformin in people aged 60-74 years with a body mass index of > or = 24 kg/m(2) and prediabetic status (fasting glucose 5.3-6.9 mmol/l and 2-h post load glucose 7.8-11.0 mmol/l) (target population approximately 72,500), according to the Diabetes Prevention Program trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cases of Type 2 diabetes prevented, cost (Euro), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Under model assumptions, 14 908 people in the target population would develop diabetes if there was no intervention, 184 cases would be avoided with lifestyle intervention and 42 cases with metformin intervention. From the perspective of statutory health insurance and society, costs for lifestyle modification were 856,507 euro (574,241 pounds) and 4,961,340 euro (3,326,307 pounds), respectively, and for metformin 797,539 euro (534,706 pounds) and 1,335,204 euro(895,181 pounds). Up to 5% of the costs were due to staff education and up to 36% to screening. Lifestyle was more cost effective than metformin. ICERs for lifestyle vs. 'no intervention' were 4664 euro (3127 pounds) and 27,015 euro (18,112 pounds) per case prevented from the statutory health insurance and societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Total cost and cost per case of diabetes avoided was high. Staff education and screening had a considerable impact. In view of the low participation in a routine healthcare setting, with both strategies only a small number of cases of diabetes would be prevented. Before implementing the programme, efforts should be made to improve patient participation in order to achieve better clinical and cost-effectiveness of the prevention of Type 2 diabetes in 'real world' clinical practice.
AIMS: To analyse the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the primary prevention of Type 2 diabetes in a 'real world' routine healthcare setting using population-based data (KORA Survey in Augsburg, Germany, total population approximately 600,000). METHODS: Decision analytic model, time horizon 3 years. INTERVENTIONS: Staff education, targeted screening and lifestyle modification or metformin in people aged 60-74 years with a body mass index of > or = 24 kg/m(2) and prediabetic status (fasting glucose 5.3-6.9 mmol/l and 2-h post load glucose 7.8-11.0 mmol/l) (target population approximately 72,500), according to the Diabetes Prevention Program trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cases of Type 2 diabetes prevented, cost (Euro), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Under model assumptions, 14 908 people in the target population would develop diabetes if there was no intervention, 184 cases would be avoided with lifestyle intervention and 42 cases with metformin intervention. From the perspective of statutory health insurance and society, costs for lifestyle modification were 856,507 euro (574,241 pounds) and 4,961,340 euro (3,326,307 pounds), respectively, and for metformin 797,539 euro (534,706 pounds) and 1,335,204 euro(895,181 pounds). Up to 5% of the costs were due to staff education and up to 36% to screening. Lifestyle was more cost effective than metformin. ICERs for lifestyle vs. 'no intervention' were 4664 euro (3127 pounds) and 27,015 euro (18,112 pounds) per case prevented from the statutory health insurance and societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Total cost and cost per case of diabetes avoided was high. Staff education and screening had a considerable impact. In view of the low participation in a routine healthcare setting, with both strategies only a small number of cases of diabetes would be prevented. Before implementing the programme, efforts should be made to improve patient participation in order to achieve better clinical and cost-effectiveness of the prevention of Type 2 diabetes in 'real world' clinical practice.
Authors: Clare L Gillies; Paul C Lambert; Keith R Abrams; Alex J Sutton; Nicola J Cooper; Ron T Hsu; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-21
Authors: Paul F van Gils; Mattijs S Lambooij; Marloes Hw Flanderijn; Matthijs van den Berg; G Ardine de Wit; Albertine J Schuit; Jeroen N Struijs; B van den Berg Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Tannaz Moin; Julie A Schmittdiel; James H Flory; Jessica Yeh; Andrew J Karter; Lydia E Kruge; Dean Schillinger; Carol M Mangione; William H Herman; Elizabeth A Walker Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Janice M S Lopez; Bozena J Katic; Marcy Fitz-Randolph; Richard A Jackson; Wing Chow; C Daniel Mullins Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 2.763