Martina Andellini1, Melania Manco2, Maria Teresa Esposito1, Alberto Eugenio Tozzi3, Michael Bergman4, Matteo Ritrovato1. 1. Health Technology Assessment Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 2. Research Area for Multifactorial Diseases and Complex Phenotypes. Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Via F. Baldelli 38, 00146, Rome, Italy. melania.manco@opbg.net. 3. Research Area for Multifactorial Diseases and Complex Phenotypes. Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Via F. Baldelli 38, 00146, Rome, Italy. 4. NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Diabetes Prevention Program, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, Manhattan Campus, New York, NY, 10010, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: The current method to diagnose impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is based on the 2-h plasma glucose (2-hPG) value during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Robust evidence demonstrates that the 1-h post-load plasma glucose (1-hPG) ≥ 8.6 mmol/L in those with normal glucose tolerance is highly predictive of type 2 diabetes (T2D), micro and macrovascular complications and mortality. The aim of this study was to conduct a health economic analysis to estimate long-term cost-effectiveness of using the 1-hPG compared to the 2-hPG for screening and assessing the risk of diabetes over 35 years. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. METHODS: A Monte Carlo-based Markov simulation model was developed to forecast long-term effects of two screening strategies with regards to clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes. The base case model included 20,000 simulated patients over 35-years follow-up. Transition probabilities on disease progression, mortality, effects on preventive treatments and complications were retrieved from landmark diabetes studies. Direct medical costs were sourced from published literature and inflated to 2019 Euros. RESULTS: In the lifetime analysis, the 1-hPG was projected to increase the number of years free from disease (2 years per patient); to delay the onset of T2D (1 year per patient); to reduce the incidence of T2D complications (0·6 RR-Relative Risk per patient) and to increase the QALY gained (0·58 per patient). Even if the 1-hPG diagnostic method resulted in higher initial costs associated with preventive treatment, long-term diabetes-related costs as well as complications costs were reduced leading to a lifetime saving of - 31225719.82€. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was - 8214.7€ per each QALY gained for the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Screening prediabetes with the 1-hPG is feasible and cost-effective resulting in reduced costs per QALY. Notwithstanding, the higher initial costs of testing with the 1-hPG compared to the 2-hPG due to incremental preventive intervention, long-term diabetes and complications costs were reduced projecting an overall cost saving of - 8214.7€ per each QALY gained.
AIMS: The current method to diagnose impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is based on the 2-h plasma glucose (2-hPG) value during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Robust evidence demonstrates that the 1-h post-load plasma glucose (1-hPG) ≥ 8.6 mmol/L in those with normal glucose tolerance is highly predictive of type 2 diabetes (T2D), micro and macrovascular complications and mortality. The aim of this study was to conduct a health economic analysis to estimate long-term cost-effectiveness of using the 1-hPG compared to the 2-hPG for screening and assessing the risk of diabetes over 35 years. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. METHODS: A Monte Carlo-based Markov simulation model was developed to forecast long-term effects of two screening strategies with regards to clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes. The base case model included 20,000 simulated patients over 35-years follow-up. Transition probabilities on disease progression, mortality, effects on preventive treatments and complications were retrieved from landmark diabetes studies. Direct medical costs were sourced from published literature and inflated to 2019 Euros. RESULTS: In the lifetime analysis, the 1-hPG was projected to increase the number of years free from disease (2 years per patient); to delay the onset of T2D (1 year per patient); to reduce the incidence of T2D complications (0·6 RR-Relative Risk per patient) and to increase the QALY gained (0·58 per patient). Even if the 1-hPG diagnostic method resulted in higher initial costs associated with preventive treatment, long-term diabetes-related costs as well as complications costs were reduced leading to a lifetime saving of - 31225719.82€. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was - 8214.7€ per each QALY gained for the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Screening prediabetes with the 1-hPG is feasible and cost-effective resulting in reduced costs per QALY. Notwithstanding, the higher initial costs of testing with the 1-hPG compared to the 2-hPG due to incremental preventive intervention, long-term diabetes and complications costs were reduced projecting an overall cost saving of - 8214.7€ per each QALY gained.