scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of testing strategies for type 2 diabetes: a modelling study

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (33) ◽  
pp. 1-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Gillett ◽  
Alan Brennan ◽  
Penny Watson ◽  
Kamlesh Khunti ◽  
Melanie Davies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Uptake Rates ◽  
Multiethnic Population ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundAn estimated 850,000 people have diabetes without knowing it and as many as 7 million more are at high risk of developing it. Within the NHS Health Checks programme, blood glucose testing can be undertaken using a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) test but the relative cost-effectiveness of these is unknown.ObjectivesTo estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes using a HbA1ctest versus a FPG test. In addition, to compare the use of a random capillary glucose (RCG) test versus a non-invasive risk score to prioritise individuals who should undertake a HbA1cor FPG test.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis using the Sheffield Type 2 Diabetes Model to model lifetime incidence of complications, costs and health benefits of screening.SettingEngland; population in the 40–74-years age range eligible for a NHS health check.Data sourcesThe Leicester Ethnic Atherosclerosis and Diabetes Risk (LEADER) data set was used to analyse prevalence and screening outcomes for a multiethnic population. Alternative prevalence rates were obtained from the literature or through personal communication.Methods(1) Modelling of screening pathways to determine the cost per case detected followed by long-term modelling of glucose progression and complications associated with hyperglycaemia; and (2) calculation of the costs and health-related quality of life arising from complications and calculation of overall cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), net monetary benefit and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.ResultsBased on the LEADER data set from a multiethnic population, the results indicate that screening using a HbA1ctest is more cost-effective than using a FPG. For National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-recommended screening strategies, HbA1cleads to a cost saving of £12 and a QALY gain of 0.0220 per person when a risk score is used as a prescreen. With no prescreen, the cost saving is £30 with a QALY gain of 0.0224. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that the likelihood of HbA1cbeing more cost-effective than FPG is 98% and 95% with and without a risk score, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicate that the results based on prevalence in the LEADER data set are insensitive to a variety of alternative assumptions. However, where a region of the country has a very different joint HbA1cand FPG distribution from the LEADER data set such that a FPG test yields a much higher prevalence of high-risk cases relative to HbA1c, FPG may be more cost-effective. The degree to which the FPG-based prevalence would have to be higher depends very much on the uncertain relative uptake rates of the two tests. Using a risk score such as the Leicester Practice Database Score (LPDS) appears to be more cost-effective than using a RCG test to identify individuals with the highest risk of diabetes who should undergo blood testing.LimitationsWe did not include rescreening because there was an absence of required relevant evidence.ConclusionsBased on the multiethnic LEADER population, among individuals currently attending NHS Health Checks, it is more cost-effective to screen for diabetes using a HbA1ctest than using a FPG test. However, in some localities, the prevalence of diabetes and high risk of diabetes may be higher for FPG relative to HbA1cthan in the LEADER cohort. In such cases, whether or not it still holds that HbA1cis likely to be more cost-effective than FPG depends on the relative uptake rates for HbA1cand FPG. Use of the LPDS appears to be more cost-effective than a RCG test for prescreening.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Russel-Szymczyk ◽  
Vasil Valov ◽  
Alexandra Savova ◽  
Manoela Manova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria. Methods A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure. Results In Bulgaria, degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM. The ICERs were estimated to be 4493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 7365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DMB/B), which are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Degludec was associated with higher insulin costs in all three patient groups; however, savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 partially offset these costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DMBOT and 91.3% in T2DMB/B. Conclusion Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Russel-Szymczyk ◽  
Vasil Valov ◽  
Alexandra Savova ◽  
Manoela Manova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.Methods A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results Degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. The ICERs were estimated to be 4,493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DM BOT ) and 7,365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DM B/B ), which all fall below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Insulin costs were higher with degludec in all three patient groups, however these were partially offset by savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DM BOT and 91.3% in T2DM B/B .Conclusion Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Russel-Szymczyk ◽  
Vasil Valov ◽  
Alexandra Savova ◽  
Manoela Manova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.Methods A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results Degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. The ICERs were estimated to be 4,493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DM BOT ) and 7,365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DM B/B ), which all fall below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Insulin costs were higher with degludec in all three patient groups, however these were partially offset by savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DM BOT and 91.3% in T2DM B/B .Conclusion Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

scholarly journals Selecting the optimal risk threshold of diabetes risk scores to identify high-risk individuals for diabetes prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Mühlenbruch ◽  
Xiaohui Zhuo ◽  
Barbara Bardenheier ◽  
Hui Shao ◽  
Michael Laxy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Aims Although risk scores to predict type 2 diabetes exist, cost-effectiveness of risk thresholds to target prevention interventions are unknown. We applied cost-effectiveness analysis to identify optimal thresholds of predicted risk to target a low-cost community-based intervention in the USA. Methods We used a validated Markov-based type 2 diabetes simulation model to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of alternative thresholds of diabetes risk. Population characteristics for the model were obtained from NHANES 2001–2004 and incidence rates and performance of two noninvasive diabetes risk scores (German diabetes risk score, GDRS, and ARIC 2009 score) were determined in the ARIC and Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for increasing risk score thresholds. Two scenarios were assumed: 1-stage (risk score only) and 2-stage (risk score plus fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test (threshold 100 mg/dl) in the high-risk group). Results In ARIC and CHS combined, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the GDRS and the ARIC 2009 score were 0.691 (0.677–0.704) and 0.720 (0.707–0.732), respectively. The optimal threshold of predicted diabetes risk (ICER < $50,000/QALY gained in case of intervention in those above the threshold) was 7% for the GDRS and 9% for the ARIC 2009 score. In the 2-stage scenario, ICERs for all cutoffs ≥ 5% were below $50,000/QALY gained. Conclusions Intervening in those with ≥ 7% diabetes risk based on the GDRS or ≥ 9% on the ARIC 2009 score would be cost-effective. A risk score threshold ≥ 5% together with elevated FPG would also allow targeting interventions cost-effectively.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of the SLIMMER diabetes prevention intervention in Dutch primary health care: economic evaluation from a randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Geerke Duijzer ◽  
Andrea J. Bukman ◽  
Aafke Meints-Groenveld ◽  
Annemien Haveman-Nies ◽  
Sophia C. Jansen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifestyle Intervention ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Although evidence is accumulating that lifestyle modification may be cost-effective in patients with prediabetes, information is limited on the cost-effectiveness of interventions implemented in public health and primary health care settings. Evidence from well-conducted pragmatic trials is needed to gain insight into the realistic cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention interventions in real-world settings. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of the SLIMMER lifestyle intervention targeted at patients at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with usual health care in a primary care setting in the Netherlands. Methods Three hundred and sixteen high-risk subjects were randomly assigned to the SLIMMER lifestyle intervention or to usual health care. Costs and outcome assessments were performed at the end of the intervention (12 months) and six months thereafter (18 months). Costs were assessed from a societal perspective. Patients completed questionnaires to assess health care utilisation, participant out-of-pocket costs, and productivity losses. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated based on the SF-36 questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were generated using bootstrap analyses. Results The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the incremental costs of the SLIMMER lifestyle intervention were €547 and that the incremental effect was 0.02 QALY, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €28,094/QALY. When cost-effectiveness was calculated from a health care perspective, the ICER decreased to €13,605/QALY, with a moderate probability of being cost-effective (56% at a willingness to pay, WTP, of €20,000/QALY and 81% at a WTP of €80,000/QALY). Conclusions The SLIMMER lifestyle intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes had a low to moderate probability of being cost-effective, depending on the perspective taken. Trial registration The SLIMMER study is retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT02094911) since March 19, 2014.

scholarly journals The cost–effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin in Type 2 diabetes in Denmark

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars H Ehlers ◽  
Mark Lamotte ◽  
Mafalda C Ramos ◽  
Susanne Sandgaard ◽  
Pia Holmgaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Diabetes Model ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of oral semaglutide+metformin versus empagliflozin+metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on msetformin alone. Materials and methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was populated with efficacy data from a head-to-head study between oral semaglutide+metformin and empagliflozin+metformin. Danish costs and quality-of-life data were sourced from literature. Price per day was Danish Krone (DKK) 25.53 for oral semaglutide and DKK11.40 for empagliflozin. Discounting was fixed at 4%. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Over a lifetime, Core Diabetes Model projected 8.78 and 8.75 quality-adjusted life-years and a total cost of DKK 447,633 and DKK 387,786; thereby, generating an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of DKK 1,930,548 for oral semaglutide+metformin versus empagliflozin+metformin. Scenario and sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the outcomes. Duration of treatment with oral semaglutide is the key driver of the analyses. Conclusion: Oral semaglutide+metformin seems not cost-effective versus empagliflozin+metformin in patients uncontrolled on metformin in Denmark.

scholarly journals Preventing type 2 diabetes: systematic review of studies of cost-effectiveness of lifestyle programmes and metformin, with and without screening, for pre-diabetes

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e017184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Roberts ◽  
Eleanor Barry ◽  
Dawn Craig ◽  
Mara Airoldi ◽  
Gwyn Bevan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Lifestyle Interventions ◽  
Prevention Programmes ◽  
Incident Cases

ObjectiveExplore the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions and metformin in reducing subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes, both alone and in combination with a screening programme to identify high-risk individuals.DesignSystematic review of economic evaluations.Data sources and eligibility criteriaDatabase searches (Embase, Medline, PreMedline, NHS EED) and citation tracking identified economic evaluations of lifestyle interventions or metformin alone or in combination with screening programmes in people at high risk of developing diabetes. The International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research’s Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility of Modelling Studies for Informing Healthcare Decision Making was used to assess study quality.Results27 studies were included; all had evaluated lifestyle interventions and 12 also evaluated metformin. Primary studies exhibited considerable heterogeneity in definitions of pre-diabetes and intensity and duration of lifestyle programmes. Lifestyle programmes and metformin appeared to be cost effective in preventing diabetes in high-risk individuals (median incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £7490/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and £8428/QALY, respectively) but economic estimates varied widely between studies. Intervention-only programmes were in general more cost effective than programmes that also included a screening component. The longer the period evaluated, the more cost-effective interventions appeared. In the few studies that evaluated other economic considerations, budget impact of prevention programmes was moderate (0.13%–0.2% of total healthcare budget), financial payoffs were delayed (by 9–14 years) and impact on incident cases of diabetes was limited (0.1%–1.6% reduction). There was insufficient evidence to answer the question of (1) whether lifestyle programmes are more cost effective than metformin or (2) whether low-intensity lifestyle interventions are more cost effective than the more intensive lifestyle programmes that were tested in trials.ConclusionsThe economics of preventing diabetes are complex. There is some evidence that diabetes prevention programmes are cost effective, but the evidence base to date provides few clear answers regarding design of prevention programmes because of differences in denominator populations, definitions, interventions and modelling assumptions.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Russel-Szymczyk ◽  
Vasil Valov ◽  
Alexandra Savova ◽  
Manoela Manova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.Methods A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results Degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. The ICERs were estimated to be 4,493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DM BOT ) and 7,365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DM B/B ), which all fall below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Insulin costs were higher with degludec in all three patient groups, however these were partially offset by savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DM BOT and 91.3% in T2DM B/B .Conclusion Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

scholarly journals Cost–effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin compared with glimepiride in patients with Type 2 diabetes in China

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Salem ◽  
Peng Men ◽  
Mafalda Ramos ◽  
Yan-Jun Zhang ◽  
Anastasia Ustyugova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Diabetes Model ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Aim: The study assesses the cost–effectiveness of empagliflozin versus glimepiride in patients with Type 2 diabetes and uncontrolled by metformin alone in China, based on the EMPA-REG H2H-SU trial. Materials & methods: A calibrated version of the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used. Cost of complications and utility were taken from literature. The Chinese healthcare system perspective and 5% discounting rates were applied. Results: Empagliflozin+metformin provides additional quality-adjusted life-years (0.317) driven by a reduction in the number of cardiovascular and renal events, for an additional cost of $1382 (CNY9703) compared with glimepiride+metformin. Conclusion: Empagliflozin is cost-effective treatment versus glimepiride applying a threshold of $30,290 (CNY212,676).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document