Simon J Neuwahl1, Ping Zhang2, Haiying Chen3, Hui Shao2,4, Michael Laxy2,5,6,7, Andrea M Anderson3, Timothy E Craven3, Thomas J Hoerger8. 1. RTI International, Durham, NC sneuwahl@rti.org. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. 4. Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida. 5. Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 6. German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Munich-Neuherberg, Germany. 7. Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany. 8. RTI International, Durham, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the health utility impact of diabetes-related complications in a large, longitudinal U.S. sample of people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We combined Health Utilities Index Mark 3 data on patients with type 2 diabetes from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) and Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trials and their follow-on studies. Complications were classified as events if they occurred in the year preceding the utility measurement; otherwise, they were classified as a history of the complication. We estimated utility decrements associated with complications using a fixed-effects regression model. RESULTS: Our sample included 15,252 persons with an average follow-up of 8.2 years and a total of 128,873 person-visit observations. The largest, statistically significant (P < 0.05) health utility decrements were for stroke (event, -0.109; history, -0.051), amputation (event, -0.092; history, -0.150), congestive heart failure (event, -0.051; history, -0.041), dialysis (event, -0.039), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (event, -0.043; history, -0.025), angina (history, -0.028), and myocardial infarction (MI) (event, -0.028). There were smaller effects for laser photocoagulation and eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Decrements for dialysis history, angina event, MI history, revascularization event, revascularization history, laser photocoagulation event, and hypoglycemia were not significant (P ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With use of a large study sample and a longitudinal design, our estimated health utility scores are expected to be largely unbiased. Estimates can be used to describe the health utility impact of diabetes complications, improve cost-effectiveness models, and inform diabetes policies.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the health utility impact of diabetes-related complications in a large, longitudinal U.S. sample of people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We combined Health Utilities Index Mark 3 data on patients with type 2 diabetes from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) and Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trials and their follow-on studies. Complications were classified as events if they occurred in the year preceding the utility measurement; otherwise, they were classified as a history of the complication. We estimated utility decrements associated with complications using a fixed-effects regression model. RESULTS: Our sample included 15,252 persons with an average follow-up of 8.2 years and a total of 128,873 person-visit observations. The largest, statistically significant (P < 0.05) health utility decrements were for stroke (event, -0.109; history, -0.051), amputation (event, -0.092; history, -0.150), congestive heart failure (event, -0.051; history, -0.041), dialysis (event, -0.039), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (event, -0.043; history, -0.025), angina (history, -0.028), and myocardial infarction (MI) (event, -0.028). There were smaller effects for laser photocoagulation and eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Decrements for dialysis history, angina event, MI history, revascularization event, revascularization history, laser photocoagulation event, and hypoglycemia were not significant (P ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With use of a large study sample and a longitudinal design, our estimated health utility scores are expected to be largely unbiased. Estimates can be used to describe the health utility impact of diabetes complications, improve cost-effectiveness models, and inform diabetes policies.
Authors: Donna H Ryan; Mark A Espeland; Gary D Foster; Steven M Haffner; Van S Hubbard; Karen C Johnson; Steven E Kahn; William C Knowler; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2003-10
Authors: Alison Hayes; Hisatomi Arima; Mark Woodward; John Chalmers; Neil Poulter; Pavel Hamet; Philip Clarke Journal: Value Health Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dennis W Raisch; Patricia Feeney; David C Goff; K M Venkat Narayan; Patrick J O'Connor; Ping Zhang; Don G Hire; Mark D Sullivan Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Erika F Werner; Christian M Pettker; Lisa Zuckerwise; Michael Reel; Edmund F Funai; Janice Henderson; Stephen F Thung Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ping Zhang; Morton B Brown; Dori Bilik; Ronald T Ackermann; Rui Li; William H Herman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 19.112