Background: Intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] level <7%) is an established, cost-effective standard of care. However, guidelines recommend individualizing goals on the basis of age, comorbidity, diabetes duration, and complications. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of individualized control versus uniform intensive control (HbA1c level <7%) for the U.S. population with type 2 diabetes. Design: Patient-level Monte Carlo-based Markov model. Data Sources: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2012. Target Population: The approximately 17.3 million persons in the United States with diabetes diagnosed at age 30 years or older. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Individualized versus uniform intensive glycemic control. Outcome Measures: Average lifetime costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results of Base-Case Analysis: Individualized control saved $13 547 per patient compared with uniform intensive control ($105 307 vs. $118 854), primarily due to lower medication costs ($34 521 vs. $48 763). Individualized control decreased life expectancy (20.63 vs. 20.73 years) due to an increase in complications but produced more QALYs (16.68 vs. 16.58) due to fewer hypoglycemic events and fewer medications. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Individualized control was cost-saving and generated more QALYs compared with uniform intensive control, except in analyses where the disutility associated with receiving diabetes medications was decreased by at least 60%. Limitation: The model did not account for effects of early versus later intensive glycemic control. Conclusion: Health policies and clinical programs that encourage an individualized approach to glycemic control for U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes reduce costs and increase quality of life compared with uniform intensive control. Additional research is needed to confirm the risks and benefits of this strategy. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Background: Intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] level <7%) is an established, cost-effective standard of care. However, guidelines recommend individualizing goals on the basis of age, comorbidity, diabetes duration, and complications. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of individualized control versus uniform intensive control (HbA1c level <7%) for the U.S. population with type 2 diabetes. Design: Patient-level Monte Carlo-based Markov model. Data Sources: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2012. Target Population: The approximately 17.3 million persons in the United States with diabetes diagnosed at age 30 years or older. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Individualized versus uniform intensive glycemic control. Outcome Measures: Average lifetime costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results of Base-Case Analysis: Individualized control saved $13 547 per patient compared with uniform intensive control ($105 307 vs. $118 854), primarily due to lower medication costs ($34 521 vs. $48 763). Individualized control decreased life expectancy (20.63 vs. 20.73 years) due to an increase in complications but produced more QALYs (16.68 vs. 16.58) due to fewer hypoglycemic events and fewer medications. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Individualized control was cost-saving and generated more QALYs compared with uniform intensive control, except in analyses where the disutility associated with receiving diabetes medications was decreased by at least 60%. Limitation: The model did not account for effects of early versus later intensive glycemic control. Conclusion: Health policies and clinical programs that encourage an individualized approach to glycemic control for U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes reduce costs and increase quality of life compared with uniform intensive control. Additional research is needed to confirm the risks and benefits of this strategy. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Authors: Ram D Pathak; Emily B Schroeder; Elizabeth R Seaquist; Chan Zeng; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Abraham Thomas; Jay Desai; Beth Waitzfelder; Gregory A Nichols; Jean M Lawrence; Andrew J Karter; John F Steiner; Jodi Segal; Patrick J O'Connor Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Silvio E Inzucchi; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse; Michaela Diamant; Ele Ferrannini; Michael Nauck; Anne L Peters; Apostolos Tsapas; Richard Wender; David R Matthews Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Phil McEwan; Jason Gordon; Marc Evans; Thomas Ward; Hayley Bennett; Klas Bergenheim Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Kristine Yaffe; Cherie M Falvey; Nathan Hamilton; Tamara B Harris; Eleanor M Simonsick; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Ronald I Shorr; Andrea Metti; Ann V Schwartz Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Steven P Marso; Gilbert H Daniels; Kirstine Brown-Frandsen; Peter Kristensen; Johannes F E Mann; Michael A Nauck; Steven E Nissen; Stuart Pocock; Neil R Poulter; Lasse S Ravn; William M Steinberg; Mette Stockner; Bernard Zinman; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Neda Laiteerapong; Sandra A Ham; Aviva G Nathan; Robert M Sargis; Michael T Quinn; Elbert S Huang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.889