AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of a Patient Empowerment Programme (PEP) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PEP participants were subjects with type 2 DM who enrolled into PEP in addition to enrolment in the Risk Assessment and Management Programme for DM (RAMP-DM) at primary care level. The comparison group was subjects who only enrolled into RAMP-DM without participating in PEP (non-PEP). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a patient-level simulation model (with fixed-time increments) from a societal perspective. We incorporated the empirical data from a matched cohort of PEP and non-PEP groups to simulate lifetime costs and outcomes for subjects with DM with or without PEP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted with results presented as a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: With an assumption that the PEP effect would last for 5 years as shown by the empirical data, the incremental cost per subject was US $197 and the incremental QALYs gained were 0.06 per subject, which resulted in an ICER of US $3290 per QALY gained compared with no PEP across the lifetime. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 66% likelihood that PEP is cost-effective compared with non-PEP when willingness-to-pay for a QALY is ≥US $46 153 (based on per capita GDP 2017). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this carefully measured cost of PEP and its potentially large benefits, PEP could be highly cost-effective from a societal perspective as an adjunct intervention for patients with DM.
AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of a Patient Empowerment Programme (PEP) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS:PEPparticipants were subjects with type 2 DM who enrolled into PEP in addition to enrolment in the Risk Assessment and Management Programme for DM (RAMP-DM) at primary care level. The comparison group was subjects who only enrolled into RAMP-DM without participating in PEP (non-PEP). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a patient-level simulation model (with fixed-time increments) from a societal perspective. We incorporated the empirical data from a matched cohort of PEP and non-PEP groups to simulate lifetime costs and outcomes for subjects with DM with or without PEP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted with results presented as a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: With an assumption that the PEP effect would last for 5 years as shown by the empirical data, the incremental cost per subject was US $197 and the incremental QALYs gained were 0.06 per subject, which resulted in an ICER of US $3290 per QALY gained compared with no PEP across the lifetime. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 66% likelihood that PEP is cost-effective compared with non-PEP when willingness-to-pay for a QALY is ≥US $46 153 (based on per capita GDP 2017). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this carefully measured cost of PEP and its potentially large benefits, PEP could be highly cost-effective from a societal perspective as an adjunct intervention for patients with DM.
Authors: Rubén Silva-Tinoco; Teresa Cuatecontzi-Xochitiotzi; Viridiana De la Torre-Saldaña; Enrique León-García; Javier Serna-Alvarado; Eileen Guzmán-Olvera; Dolores Cabrera; Juan G Gay; Diddier Prada Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2020-05-24
Authors: Padam Kanta Dahal; Lal B Rawal; Rashidul Alam Mahumud; Grish Paudel; Tomohiko Sugishita; Corneel Vandelanotte Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.614