Leonard E Egede1,2, Clara E Dismuke3, Christian Eiler1, Joni S Williams1,2, Rebekah J Walker1,2. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. 2. Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. 3. Health Economics Resource Center (HERC), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA.
Abstract
Purpose: Evaluate cost-effectiveness of a telephone-delivered education and behavioral skills intervention in reducing glycemic control (HbA1c) and decreasing risk of complications. Methods: Data from a randomized controlled trial, conducted from August 1, 2008 - June 30, 2010 and using a 2x2 factorial design delivered to 255 African American adults not meeting glycemic targets for diabetes were used. Though the primary aim found no significant differences in HbA1c between groups, there was an overall drop in HbA1c across arms and differential cost. Primary clinical outcome was HbA1c measured at 12-months. Costs were estimated based on self-reported utilization of primary care, emergency, and other health care. Costs due to lost wages were calculated based on self-reported days of work missed due to illness. The Michigan Model for Diabetes was used to estimate 10-year probability of developing congestive heart failure, cardiovascular disease, end stage renal disease, stroke, myocardial infarction, all cause death, and CVD death. Total cost per patient and clinical outcomes were used to estimate an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) using non-parametric bootstrapping. Results: ICERs indicated combined education and skills intervention was $3,630 less expensive than usual care to achieve a 0.6% decrease in HbA1c and was between $34,000 and $95,000 less expensive than usual care to reduce risk of complications. The knowledge only intervention was $661 less expensive than usual care and the behavioral skills only intervention did not indicate cost effectiveness. Conclusion: The combined intervention ICER for HbA1c is comparable to other education programs and the ICER to reduce the probability of complications falls below previously recommended long-term cut-off of $100,000, suggesting cost-effectiveness in an African American population.
RCT Entities:
Purpose: Evaluate cost-effectiveness of a telephone-delivered education and behavioral skills intervention in reducing glycemic control (HbA1c) and decreasing risk of complications. Methods: Data from a randomized controlled trial, conducted from August 1, 2008 - June 30, 2010 and using a 2x2 factorial design delivered to 255 African American adults not meeting glycemic targets for diabetes were used. Though the primary aim found no significant differences in HbA1c between groups, there was an overall drop in HbA1c across arms and differential cost. Primary clinical outcome was HbA1c measured at 12-months. Costs were estimated based on self-reported utilization of primary care, emergency, and other health care. Costs due to lost wages were calculated based on self-reported days of work missed due to illness. The Michigan Model for Diabetes was used to estimate 10-year probability of developing congestive heart failure, cardiovascular disease, end stage renal disease, stroke, myocardial infarction, all cause death, and CVD death. Total cost per patient and clinical outcomes were used to estimate an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) using non-parametric bootstrapping. Results: ICERs indicated combined education and skills intervention was $3,630 less expensive than usual care to achieve a 0.6% decrease in HbA1c and was between $34,000 and $95,000 less expensive than usual care to reduce risk of complications. The knowledge only intervention was $661 less expensive than usual care and the behavioral skills only intervention did not indicate cost effectiveness. Conclusion: The combined intervention ICER for HbA1c is comparable to other education programs and the ICER to reduce the probability of complications falls below previously recommended long-term cut-off of $100,000, suggesting cost-effectiveness in an African American population.
Authors: Honghong Zhou; Deanna J M Isaman; Shari Messinger; Morton B Brown; Ronald Klein; Michael Brandle; William H Herman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Mark Peyrot; Katharina Kovacs Burns; Melanie Davies; Angus Forbes; Norbert Hermanns; Richard Holt; Sanjay Kalra; Antonio Nicolucci; Frans Pouwer; Johan Wens; Ingrid Willaing; Søren E Skovlund Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Jennifer Pillay; Marni J Armstrong; Sonia Butalia; Lois E Donovan; Ronald J Sigal; Ben Vandermeer; Pritam Chordiya; Sanjaya Dhakal; Lisa Hartling; Megan Nuspl; Robin Featherstone; Donna M Dryden Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Emmett Keeler; Laura J Anderson; Jonas Green; Sally C Morton; Brian J Doyle; Kanaka Shetty; Aziza Arifkhanova; Marika Booth; Roberta Shanman; Paul Shekelle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Jinshuo Li; Steve Parrott; Michael Sweeting; Andrew Farmer; Jamie Ross; Charlotte Dack; Kingshuk Pal; Lucy Yardley; Maria Barnard; Mohammed Hudda; Ghadah Alkhaldi; Elizabeth Murray Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 5.428