A J Palmer1, D M D Tucker. 1. Menzies Research Institute Tasmania, Department of Health Economics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. andrew.palmer@utas.edu.au
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Metformin and intensive lifestyle changes (ILC) reduced the incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) versus standard care (control) in overweight or obese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS). We projected lifetime clinical and economic outcomes based on the results from the DPP+DPPOS, from a 3rd-party payer perspective in Australia. METHODS: A semi-Markov, 2nd-order Monte Carlo model was developed with four health states: "normal glucose regulation" (NGR); IGT; T2D and 'dead'. Outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence (standard deviation) of T2D was 89.7% (0.2), 83.8% (0.2) and 73.4% (0.3%) for control, metformin and ILC respectively. Lifetime incremental direct costs were $1217 (4411) per subject for metformin versus control, with cost savings of $289 (4296) for ILC versus control. ILC therefore dominated control, with improvements in clinical outcomes and overall cost savings. Incremental costs per QALY-gained for metformin versus control were $10,142. Probability of cost-effectiveness at willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 was 78% and 100% for metformin or ILC respectively. Results were most sensitive to probabilities of developing T2D and costs of implementing the interventions. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Substantial improvements in lifetime clinical outcomes could be expected in high risk subjects treated with metformin or ILC. Prevention of T2D in this group of subjects is good value for money, and may even lead to long term cost savings.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Metformin and intensive lifestyle changes (ILC) reduced the incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) versus standard care (control) in overweight or obese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS). We projected lifetime clinical and economic outcomes based on the results from the DPP+DPPOS, from a 3rd-party payer perspective in Australia. METHODS: A semi-Markov, 2nd-order Monte Carlo model was developed with four health states: "normal glucose regulation" (NGR); IGT; T2D and 'dead'. Outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence (standard deviation) of T2D was 89.7% (0.2), 83.8% (0.2) and 73.4% (0.3%) for control, metformin and ILC respectively. Lifetime incremental direct costs were $1217 (4411) per subject for metformin versus control, with cost savings of $289 (4296) for ILC versus control. ILC therefore dominated control, with improvements in clinical outcomes and overall cost savings. Incremental costs per QALY-gained for metformin versus control were $10,142. Probability of cost-effectiveness at willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 was 78% and 100% for metformin or ILC respectively. Results were most sensitive to probabilities of developing T2D and costs of implementing the interventions. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Substantial improvements in lifetime clinical outcomes could be expected in high risk subjects treated with metformin or ILC. Prevention of T2D in this group of subjects is good value for money, and may even lead to long term cost savings.
Authors: Natalia Olchanski; David van Klaveren; Joshua T Cohen; John B Wong; Robin Ruthazer; David M Kent Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Miguel Marino; Heather Angier; Rachel Springer; Steele Valenzuela; Megan Hoopes; Jean O'Malley; Andrew Suchocki; John Heintzman; Jennifer DeVoe; Nathalie Huguet Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Rui Li; Shuli Qu; Ping Zhang; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Edward W Gregg; Ann Albright; David Hopkins; Nicolaas P Pronk Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: William H Herman; Sharon L Edelstein; Robert E Ratner; Maria G Montez; Ronald T Ackermann; Trevor J Orchard; Mary A Foulkes; Ping Zhang; Christopher D Saudek; Morton B Brown Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.229
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: Miguel Marino; Heather Angier; Katie Fankhauser; Steele Valenzuela; Megan Hoopes; John Heintzman; Jennifer DeVoe; Laura Moreno; Nathalie Huguet Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.178