Francisco J Barrera1,2, Freddy Jk Toloza1,3, Oscar J Ponce1,4, Jorge A Zuñiga-Hernandez2, Larry J Prokop5, Nilay D Shah6, Gordon Guyatt7, Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez1,2, Victor M Montori8. 1. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Plataforma INVEST Medicina UANL-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico. 3. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 4. Unidad de Conocimiento y Evidencia (CONEVID), Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru. 5. Mayo Clinic Libraries, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Division of Health Care Policy & Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 7. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 8. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. montori.victor@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently available randomized trial evidence has shown no reductions in type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications important to patients with tight glycemic control. Yet, economic analyses consistently find tight glycemic control to be cost-effective. To understand this apparent paradox, we systematically identified and appraised economic analyses of tight glycemic control for T2D. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from January 2016 to January 2018 for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of any glucose-lowering treatments for adults with T2D using simulations with long-40 years to lifetime-time horizons. Reviewers selected and appraised each study independently and in duplicate with good reproducibility. RESULTS: We found 30 analyses, most comparing the glycemic impact of glucose-lowering drugs and applying their impact on HbA1c to model (most commonly IMS CORE or Cardiff T2DM) their impact on the incidence of diabetes-related complication. Models drew from observational evidence of the correlation of HbA1c levels and diabetes-related complication rates; none used estimates of the effect of lowering HbA1c on these outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Sensitivity analyses, when conducted, demonstrate substantial loss of cost-effectiveness as simulations approach the results seen in these trials. CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on the association between glycemic control and diabetes-related complications evident in observational studies but not apparent in randomized trial bias the estimates of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve glycemic control.
PURPOSE: Currently available randomized trial evidence has shown no reductions in type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications important to patients with tight glycemic control. Yet, economic analyses consistently find tight glycemic control to be cost-effective. To understand this apparent paradox, we systematically identified and appraised economic analyses of tight glycemic control for T2D. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from January 2016 to January 2018 for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of any glucose-lowering treatments for adults with T2D using simulations with long-40 years to lifetime-time horizons. Reviewers selected and appraised each study independently and in duplicate with good reproducibility. RESULTS: We found 30 analyses, most comparing the glycemic impact of glucose-lowering drugs and applying their impact on HbA1c to model (most commonly IMS CORE or Cardiff T2DM) their impact on the incidence of diabetes-related complication. Models drew from observational evidence of the correlation of HbA1c levels and diabetes-related complication rates; none used estimates of the effect of lowering HbA1c on these outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Sensitivity analyses, when conducted, demonstrate substantial loss of cost-effectiveness as simulations approach the results seen in these trials. CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on the association between glycemic control and diabetes-related complications evident in observational studies but not apparent in randomized trial bias the estimates of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve glycemic control.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost effectiveness analysis; Economic evaluation; Health economics; Health policy; Intensive glycemic control; Type 2 diabetes
Authors: Chiun-Fang Chiou; Joel W Hay; Joel F Wallace; Bernard S Bloom; Peter J Neumann; Sean D Sullivan; Hsing-Ting Yu; Emmett B Keeler; James M Henning; Joshua J Ofman Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Hans-Georg Eichler; Sheldon X Kong; William C Gerth; Panagiotis Mavros; Bengt Jönsson Journal: Value Health Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Benjamin M Scirica; Deepak L Bhatt; Eugene Braunwald; P Gabriel Steg; Jaime Davidson; Boaz Hirshberg; Peter Ohman; Robert Frederich; Stephen D Wiviott; Elaine B Hoffman; Matthew A Cavender; Jacob A Udell; Nihar R Desai; Ofri Mosenzon; Darren K McGuire; Kausik K Ray; Lawrence A Leiter; Itamar Raz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas A Zelniker; Stephen D Wiviott; Itamar Raz; Kyungah Im; Erica L Goodrich; Marc P Bonaca; Ofri Mosenzon; Eri T Kato; Avivit Cahn; Remo H M Furtado; Deepak L Bhatt; Lawrence A Leiter; Darren K McGuire; John P H Wilding; Marc S Sabatine Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Angelyn Bethel; Rishi A Patel; Peter Merrill; Yuliya Lokhnygina; John B Buse; Robert J Mentz; Neha J Pagidipati; Juliana C Chan; Stephanie M Gustavson; Nayyar Iqbal; Aldo P Maggioni; Peter Öhman; Neil R Poulter; Ambady Ramachandran; Bernard Zinman; Adrian F Hernandez; Rury R Holman Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Sarah E Rutstein; Joan T Price; Nora E Rosenberg; Stuart M Rennie; Andrea K Biddle; William C Miller Journal: Glob Public Health Date: 2016-05-04
Authors: Andrew J Palmer; Philip Clarke; Alastair Gray; Jose Leal; Adam Lloyd; David Grant; James Palmer; Volker Foos; Mark Lamotte; William Hermann; Jacob Barhak; Michael Willis; Ruth Coleman; Ping Zhang; Phil McEwan; Jonathan Betz Brown; Ulf Gerdtham; Elbert Huang; Andrew Briggs; Katarina Steen Carlsson; William Valentine Journal: Value Health Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 5.725