The economics of screening and treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who fail metformin monotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and to pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) compared with other therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after metformin monotherapy failure.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Tufts Registry for eligible cost-utility studies up to June 2018, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. We conducted a systematic review and pooled the INBs of GLP1s compared with other therapies in T2DM after metformin monotherapy failure. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2017 US$. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies, stratified by level of country income; a random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was present, and a fixed-effects model if it was absent. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HICs). The pooled INBs of GLP1s compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) (n=10), sulfonylureas (n=6), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n=3), and insulin (n=23) from HICs were US$4012.21 (95% CI US$-571.43 to US$8595.84, I²=0%), US$3857.34 (95% CI US$-7293.93 to US$15 008.61, I²=45.9%), US$37 577.74 (95% CI US$-649.02 to US$75 804.50, I²=92.4%) and US$14 062.42 (95% CI US$8168.69 to US$19 956.15, I²=86.4%), respectively. GLP1s were statistically significantly cost-effective compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas, and TZDs. Among GLP1s, liraglutide was more cost-effective compared with lixisenatide, but not compared with exenatide, with corresponding pooled INBs of US$4555.09 (95% CI US$3992.60 to US$5117.59, I²=0) and US$728.46 (95% CI US$-1436.14 to US$2893.07, I²=0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

GLP1 agonists are a cost-effective choice compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas and TZDs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105193.

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus, a metabolic disorder characterised by hyperglycaemia and associated with a heavy burden of microvascular and macrovascular complications, frequently remains undiagnosed. Screening of apparently healthy individuals may lead to early detection and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and may prevent or delay the development of related complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception. The date of the last search was May 2019 for all databases. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults and children without known diabetes mellitus, conducted over at least three months, that assessed the effect of diabetes screening (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) compared to no diabetes screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential relevance and reviewed the full-texts of potentially relevant studies, extracted data, and carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 4651 titles and abstracts identified by the search and assessed 92 full-texts/records for inclusion. We included one cluster-randomised trial, the ADDITION-Cambridge study, which involved 20,184 participants from 33 general practices in Eastern England and assessed the effects of inviting versus not inviting high-risk individuals to screening for diabetes. The diabetes risk score was used to identify high-risk individuals; it comprised variables relating to age, sex, body mass index, and the use of prescribed steroid and anti-hypertensive medication. Twenty-seven practices were randomised to the screening group (11,737 participants actually attending screening) and 5 practices to the no-screening group (4137 participants). In both groups, 36% of participants were women; the average age of participants was 58.2 years in the screening group and 57.9 years in the no-screening group. Almost half of participants in both groups were on antihypertensive medication. The findings from the first phase of this study indicate that screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes did not show a clear difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.25, low-certainty evidence). Screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus showed an HR of 1.26, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.12 (low-certainty evidence) for diabetes-related mortality (based on whether diabetes was reported as a cause of death on the death certificate). Diabetes-related morbidity and health-related quality of life were only reported in a subsample and did not show a substantial difference between the screening intervention and control. The included study did not report on adverse events, incidence of type 2 diabetes, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes on all-cause mortality and diabetes-related mortality. Evidence was available from one study only. We are therefore unable to draw any firm conclusions relating to the health outcomes of early type 2 diabetes mellitus screening. Furthermore, the included study did not assess all of the outcomes prespecified in the review (diabetes-related morbidity, incidence of type 2 diabetes, health-related quality of life, adverse events, socioeconomic effects).

Cost Utility of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Metformin Monotherapy Failed Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and associated ailments are leading economic burdens to society. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are recent antidiabetic medications with beneficial clinical efficacy. This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM patients who failed metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

Relevant economic evaluation studies of T2DM patients were identified from PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, and the Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis Registry until June 2018. Studies were eligible if they studied T2DM patients who failed metformin monotherapy and assessed the cost-effectiveness/utility between SGLT2 inhibitors and other treatments. Details of the study characteristics, economic model inputs, costs, and outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the biases in economic studies (ECOBIAS) checklist. The incremental net benefit was calculated with monetary units adjusting for purchasing power parity for 2017 US dollars. This was then pooled across studies stratified by the country's level of income using a random-effect model if heterogeneity was present and with a fixed-effect model otherwise. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies with 22 comparisons, mainly from high-income countries, were eligible. Six and 4 studies compared SGLT2 with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and sulfonylureas, respectively. The pooled incremental net benefits (95% confidence interval) for these corresponding comparisons were $164.95 (-$534.71 to $864.61; I² = 0%) and $3675.09 ($1656.46-$5693.71; I² = 85.4%), respectively. These results indicate that SGLT2s were cost-effective in comparison with sulfonylureas but not DPP4i.

CONCLUSION

SGLT2s were cost-effective as compared with sulfonylureas but not DPP4i. Most of the evidence was from high-income countries with few comparative drug groups, and the results might not be representative of the actual global scenario. Further studies from middle and lower economies and other comparators are still required.

Clinical and Psychosocial Factors Influencing Retinal Screening Uptake Among Young Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Young adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D, 18-39 years) experience early-onset and rapid progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR), the leading cause of vision loss for working age adults. Despite this, uptake of retinal screening, the crucial first step in preventing vision loss from DR, is low. The aim of this review is to summarize the clinical and psychosocial factors affecting uptake of retinal screening.

RECENT FINDINGS

Barriers include lack of diabetes-related symptoms, low personal DR risk perception, high rates of depression and diabetes-related distress, fatalism about inevitability of complications, time and financial constraints, disengagement with existing diabetes self-management services, and perceived stigma due to having a condition associated with older adults. Young adults with T2D are an under-researched population who face an accumulation of barriers to retinal screening. Tailored interventions that address the needs, characteristics, and priorities of young adults with T2D are warranted.

Communicating Care in Insulin Therapy

The current study was carried out to find out patients’ needs related to insulin therapy, and to understand the current practices and missing links from the public health perspective. The study was conducted in urban Delhi. The sample was selected using the multi-stage sampling technique. Structured interviews were used to collect data from respondents. In all, 279 interviews were conducted, out of which 96 respondents were patients of type 1 and 183 of type 2 diabetes. The patients participating in the study were taking at least one shot of insulin per day. Findings indicate that diagnosis of diabetes is a stressful event in an individual's life, and insulin therapy adds to this stress. This needs special attention from doctors and family members considering its psychological impact, which is missing in currently available treatment practices. It was also found that the whole emphasis of treat-ment was on curative aspects rather than preventive and promotive aspects given that diabetes is an emerging public health problem. Further, the study highlights various other associated factors that need to be addressed from the patient's perspective.

Prevalence of pre-diabetes in young Mexican adults in primary health care

BACKGROUND

Pre-diabetes in young people is frequently unrecognized or not treated on time, with the consequent loss of opportunity for diabetes prevention. In Mexico, there is scarce information about the prevalence of pre-diabetes in young adults.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and risk factors for pre-diabetes in young Mexican adults in primary health care.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, 288 subjects, aged 18-30 years, from a primary care unit were included. Pre-diabetes was diagnosed (according to the criteria of the American Diabetes Association) as impaired fasting glucose (8-12 hours fasting plasma glucose level: 100-125 mg/dl) or impaired glucose tolerance (140-199 mg/dl after a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test).

RESULTS

Prevalence of pre-diabetes was 14.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.7-19.2], whereas that of diabetes was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.0-4.9). A high proportion of patients had history of obesity, diabetes, hypertension and consumption of tobacco and alcohol. Pre-diabetic patients were older than normoglycaemics (pre-diabetic patients: 26±4 years versus normoglycaemic subjects: 24±3 years, P = 0.003) and had higher body mass index (BMI; pre-diabetic patients: 29.4±6.8 kg/m(2) versus normoglycaemic subjects: 26.8±5.8 kg/m(2); P = 0.009), particularly in the case of men (pre-diabetic men: 29.3±7.0 kg/m(2) versus normoglycaemic men: 26.4±5.1 kg/m(2); P = 0.03). Although waist circumference showed a trend to be higher among pre-diabetics, no significant differences were found according to gender (among males: pre-diabetics: 99.5±18.8 cm versus normoglycaemics: 93.3±14.4 cm, P = 0.09; among females: pre-diabetics: 91.5±13.8 cm versus normoglycaemics: 85.8±15.9 cm, P = 0.16). Only age and BMI were significantly associated with the presence of pre-diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 15% of these young adults had pre-diabetes. Many modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors were present in these patients, but only age and a higher BMI were independent variables significantly associated with pre-diabetes. Timely interventions in primary health care are needed to prevent or delay the progression to diabetes.

Cost-utility analyses in diabetes: a systematic review and implications from real-world evidence

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of diabetes interventions, identify high-value diabetes services, and estimate potential gains from increasing their utilization.

METHODS

The study consisted of two steps. First, we reviewed cost-utility analyses (CUAs) related to diabetes published through the end of 2012, using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org). We used logistic regression to examine factors independently associated with favorable cost-effective ratios. Second, we used the Humedica electronic medical records to estimate potential savings and health benefits gained by shifting patients currently receiving low-value services to high-value alternatives.

RESULTS

We identified 196 diabetes CUAs, of which 55% examined pharmaceuticals. Most (70%) diabetes CUAs focused on treatment rather than prevention. Most used a health care payer perspective and were industry-sponsored. Of the 497 published cost-utility ratios, 82% examined an intervention recommended by diabetes guidelines. Approximately 73% of the interventions were cost-saving or below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Logistic regression analysis showed that higher-quality CUAs, CUAs conducted from the US perspective, surgical interventions, and guideline-recommended interventions were more likely to report favorable ratios. Of the 7907 eligible patients with diabetes in our sample, up to 7117 could in principle be shifted to cost-saving treatments, reducing costs by $12.5 million and gaining more than 1938 quality-adjusted life-years over a lifetime.

CONCLUSIONS

Most diabetes interventions evaluated by CUAs are recommended by practice guidelines and may provide good value for money. Our results indicate that patients with diabetes and the health care system could potentially benefit from shifting to the greater use of high-value services.

Impact of screening and early detection of impaired fasting glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes in Canada: a Markov model simulation

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major global health problem. An estimated 20%-50% of diabetic subjects in Canada are currently undiagnosed, and around 20%-30% have already developed complications. Screening for high blood glucose levels can identify people with prediabetic conditions and permit introduction of timely and effective prevention. This study examines the benefit of screening for impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and T2DM. If intervention is introduced at this prediabetic stage, it can be most effective in delaying the onset and complications of T2DM.

METHODS

Using a Markov model simulation, we compare the cost-effectiveness of screening for prediabetes (IFG) and T2DM with the strategy of no screening. An initial cohort of normoglycemic, prediabetic, or undiagnosed diabetic adults with one or more T2DM risk factors was used to model the strategies mentioned over a 10-year period. Subjects without known prediabetes or diabetes are screened every 3 years and persons with prediabetes were tested for diabetes on an annual basis. The model weighs the increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with early detection of prediabetes and earlier diagnosis of T2DM due to lifestyle intervention and early treatment in asymptomatic subjects.

RESULTS

Costs for each QALY gained were $2281 for conventional screening compared with $2890 for no screening. Thus, in this base-case analysis, conventional screening with a frequency of once every 3 years was favored over no screening. Furthermore, conventional screening was more favorable compared with no screening over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Changing the frequency of screening did not affect the overall results. Screening persons without diabetes or prediabetes on an annual basis had small effects on the cost-effectiveness ratios. Screening with a frequency of once every 5 years resulted in the lowest cost per QALY ($2117). Lack of screening costs the health care system $4812 more than the cost of screening once every 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The increased cost per QALY of not screening is due to the costs of complications caused downstream of T2DM. By ensuring that IFG screening occurs every 3 years for those without prediabetes and every year for those with prediabetes, the health and financial benefits related to T2DM are improved in Canada.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and control diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to prevent and control diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature on the CE of diabetes interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published between January 1985 and May 2008. We categorized the strength of evidence about the CE of an intervention as strong, supportive, or uncertain. CEs were classified as cost saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (<or=$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001 to $50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001 to $100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not cost-effective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). The CE classification of an intervention was reported separately by country setting (U.S. or other developed countries) if CE varied by where the intervention was implemented. Costs were measured in 2007 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies from 20 countries met the inclusion criteria. A large majority of the ADA recommended interventions are cost-effective. We found strong evidence to classify the following interventions as cost saving or very cost-effective: (I) Cost saving- 1) ACE inhibitor (ACEI) therapy for intensive hypertension control compared with standard hypertension control; 2) ACEI or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy to prevent end-stage renal disease (ESRD) compared with no ACEI or ARB treatment; 3) early irbesartan therapy (at the microalbuminuria stage) to prevent ESRD compared with later treatment (at the macroalbuminuria stage); 4) comprehensive foot care to prevent ulcers compared with usual care; 5) multi-component interventions for diabetic risk factor control and early detection of complications compared with conventional insulin therapy for persons with type 1 diabetes; and 6) multi-component interventions for diabetic risk factor control and early detection of complications compared with standard glycemic control for persons with type 2 diabetes. (II) Very cost-effective- 1) intensive lifestyle interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes among persons with impaired glucose tolerance compared with standard lifestyle recommendations; 2) universal opportunistic screening for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in African Americans between 45 and 54 years old; 3) intensive glycemic control as implemented in the UK Prospective Diabetes Study in persons with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes compared with conventional glycemic control; 4) statin therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease compared with no statin therapy; 5) counseling and treatment for smoking cessation compared with no counseling and treatment; 6) annual screening for diabetic retinopathy and ensuing treatment in persons with type 1 diabetes compared with no screening; 7) annual screening for diabetic retinopathy and ensuing treatment in persons with type 2 diabetes compared with no screening; and 8) immediate vitrectomy to treat diabetic retinopathy compared with deferred vitrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Many interventions intended to prevent/control diabetes are cost saving or very cost-effective and supported by strong evidence. Policy makers should consider giving these interventions a higher priority.

Ruboxistaurin: PKC-beta inhibition for complications of diabetes

Diabetes mellitus is the most common cause of blindness among working-age adults, with a prevalence of 7 - 8% of adults in the USA, and is one of the most common causes of renal failure requiring kidney transplant and the most common cause of non-traumatic lower limb amputation in developed nations [1] . The role of the intracellular signaling enzyme protein kinase C (PKC) in the development of diabetic complications has become a field of intense research interest. An inhibitor of the PKC-beta isoform ruboxistaurin (RBX) has in vitro and in vivo benefits in ameliorating disturbances of cell regulation and blood flow related to hyperglycemia. The benefit of RBX for peripheral neuropathy has not been successfully demonstrated in Phase III trials. Although there was a beneficial effect of RBX on nephropathy in a pilot study, there has been no further clinical development for this indication. The major cause of visual disability - diabetic macular edema - seems to respond to RBX treatment with both anatomic and functional benefits. The manufacturer, Eli Lilly Co., has received an approvable letter from the FDA for the prevention of vision loss in patients with diabetic retinopathy with RBX, pending results of additional clinical trials for this indication.

A review of methods used in long-term cost-effectiveness models of diabetes mellitus treatment

Diabetes mellitus is a major healthcare concern from both a treatment and a funding perspective. Although decision makers frequently rely on models to evaluate the long-term costs and consequences associated with diabetes interventions, no recent article has reviewed the methods used in long-term cost-effectiveness models of diabetes treatment. The following databases were searched up to April 2008 to identify published economic models evaluating treatments for diabetes mellitus: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Thomson's Biosis Previews, NHS EED via Wiley's Cochrane Library, and Wiley's HEED database. Identified articles were reviewed and grouped according to unique models. When a model was applied in different settings (e.g. country) or compared different treatment alternatives, only the original publication describing the model was included. In some cases, subsequent articles were included if they provided methodological advances from the original model. The following data were captured for each study: (i) study characteristics; (ii) model structure; (iii) long-term complications, data sources, methods reporting and model validity; (iv) utilities, data sources and methods reporting; (v) costs, data sources and methods reporting; (vi) model data requirements; and (vii) economic results including methods to deal with uncertainty. A total of 17 studies were identified, 12 of which allowed for the conduct of a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis. Although most models were Markov-based microsimulations, models differed with respect to the number of diabetes-related complications included. The majority of the studies used a lifetime time horizon and a payer perspective. The DCCT for type 1 diabetes and the UKPDS for type 2 diabetes were the trial data sources most commonly cited for the efficacy data, although several non-randomized data sources were used. While the methods used to derive the efficacy data were commonly reported, less information was given regarding the derivation of the utilities or the costs. New interventions were generally deemed cost effective based on ten studies presenting results. Authors relied mostly on univariate sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of their models. Although diabetes is a complex disease, several models have been developed to predict the long-term costs and consequences associated with diabetes treatment. Combined with previous findings, this review supports the development of a reference case that could be used for any new diabetes models. Models could be enhanced if they had the capacity to deal with both first- and second-order uncertainty. Future research should continue to compare economic models for diabetes treatment in terms of clinical outcomes, costs and QALYs when applicable.

Communicating Care in Insulin Therapy

The current study was carried out to find out patients’ needs related to insulin therapy, and to understand the current practices and missing links from the public health perspective. The study was conducted in urban Delhi. The sample was selected using the multi-stage sampling technique. Structured interviews were used to collect data from respondents. In all, 279 interviews were conducted, out of which 96 respondents were patients of type 1 and 183 of type 2 diabetes. The patients participating in the study were taking at least one shot of insulin per day. Findings indicate that diagnosis of diabetes is a stressful event in an individual's life, and insulin therapy adds to this stress. This needs special attention from doctors and family members considering its psychological impact, which is missing in currently available treatment practices. It was also found that the whole emphasis of treat-ment was on curative aspects rather than preventive and promotive aspects given that diabetes is an emerging public health problem. Further, the study highlights various other associated factors that need to be addressed from the patient's perspective.

Pharmaco-economic issues for diabetes therapy

A systematic review was undertaken to analyse pharmaco-economic issues in diabetes, with evidence selected on the basis of relevance and immediacy. Pharmaco-economics in diabetes primarily relates to making choices about antidiabetic pharmaceuticals, and this is being influenced by global trends. Trends include increasing numbers of patients with diabetes, with increasing costs of caring for people with diabetes, and an ever-present focus on the costs of pharmaceuticals which are predicted to increase as the pace of development of new medications parallels the increasing incidence of the condition. These developments have influenced the demand for health care in diabetes in the last decade, and will continue to determine this in the coming decade. Recent national experiences are cited to illustrate current issues and to focus specifically upon the challenges facing a raft of new diabetes treatment options now hitting the marketplace, although supported by fewer completed long-term trials. It can be anticipated that these newer agents will be appraised for their cost-effectiveness or value for money. Economic analyses for some of the new technologies are summarized; in general, the peer-reviewed publications using well-accepted and validated models have reported that these technologies are cost-effective. Endorsement of any technology in a national setting is not awarded simply because the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) falls below the threshold regarded as value for money. In most national observations the reviewers expressed concerns about assumptions used in economic modelling which resulted in the ICERs being deemed optimistic at best, generally highly uncertain, and resulting in the cost-effectiveness appearing better than it really would be in clinical practice. This has often led to the authorities concluding that the price advantage of new technologies over comparators could not be justified, essentially leading to restrictions in use compared to their licence. In general, a paucity of robust evidence on longer-term outcome data together with a lack of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data collected in a reliable manner in appropriate patients and amenable to utility (and hence quality adjusted life year or QALY) estimation have resulted in problems for these new drugs at the so-called fourth (cost-effectiveness) hurdle. In the light of these findings, the implications for generating credible fit-for-purpose cost-effectiveness analyses of new technologies in diabetes are discussed. Throughout this chapter, the interested reader is referred to a number of excellent review articles for further details.

Communicating Care in Insulin Therapy

The current study was carried out to find out patients’ needs related to insulin therapy, and to understand the current practices and missing links from the public health perspective. The study was conducted in urban Delhi. The sample was selected using the multi-stage sampling technique. Structured interviews were used to collect data from respondents. In all, 279 interviews were conducted, out of which 96 respondents were patients of type 1 and 183 of type 2 diabetes. The patients participating in the study were taking at least one shot of insulin per day. Findings indicate that diagnosis of diabetes is a stressful event in an individual's life, and insulin therapy adds to this stress. This needs special attention from doctors and family members considering its psychological impact, which is missing in currently available treatment practices. It was also found that the whole emphasis of treat-ment was on curative aspects rather than preventive and promotive aspects given that diabetes is an emerging public health problem. Further, the study highlights various other associated factors that need to be addressed from the patient's perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of oral hypoglycaemic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Diabetes is a public health problem worldwide. Its treatment includes controlling hyperglycaemia, initially through changes in lifestyle such as diet, exercise and weight loss. UK Prospective Diabetes Study results showed that intensive treatment to achieve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes reduces the risk of diabetes-related complications. Typically, patients initially receive monotherapy with oral hypoglycaemic agents but usually progress to combination therapy or insulin. In the short term, the cost of achieving glycaemic control can be substantial, particularly when combination therapy is required. However, additional treatment costs of achieving recommended glycaemic control levels are predicted to be at least partially offset in the long term by the reduction of diabetes-related complications and their related management costs.

Cost effectiveness of preventive interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to give an overview of economic evaluations of preventive interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus. The interventions were sorted by type of preventive intervention (primary, secondary or tertiary) and by category (e.g. education, medication for hypertension). Several databases were searched for studies published between January 1990 and May 2004 on the three types of preventive intervention. For each study selected, inclusion of specific components from a standardised list of items, including quality, was recorded in a database. Summary tables were generated based on the database.A number of conclusions were drawn from this review. The most important was that strict blood pressure control was a more cost-effective intervention than less strict control, as shown by six studies reporting cost savings to very low costs per life-year gained. Primary and secondary prevention of type 2 diabetes were also highly cost effective, but these results were based on very few studies. Medications to reduce weight and hyperglycaemia together were cost effective compared with conventional interventions. Finally, the separate results regarding medications to reduce weight, hyperglycaemia and hypercholesterolaemia varied enormously, thus no conclusion could be drawn and further economic analysis is required.

Cost-effectiveness of acarbose for the management of impaired glucose tolerance in Sweden

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of acarbose in the management of patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in Sweden, based on progression to type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular (CV) events reported in the STOP-NIDDM trial population, including high-risk subgroups. The cost per patient free from T2D was SEK28,000 or SEK1260 per diabetes free month prior to progression to T2D. The cost per patient free from CV events was SEK101,000 or SEK5000 per CV event free month. For the high CV risk subgroups, acarbose treatment dominated placebo (i.e. acarbose was more effective, less costly). Acarbose significantly reduces the incidence of diabetes and CV events in IGT patients. We predict this may translate into healthcare cost savings that partially or, in patients at high CV risk, fully offset the cost of acarbose. We conclude that acarbose is likely to be cost-effective in the management of impaired glucose tolerance.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening procedures for type 2 diabetes: the KORA Survey 2000

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of different type 2 diabetes screening strategies using population-based data (KORA Survey; Augsburg, Germany; subjects aged 55-74 years), including participation data.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The decision analytic model, which had a time horizon of 1 year, used the following screening strategies: fasting glucose testing, the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) following fasting glucose testing in impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (fasting glucose + OGTT), OGTT only, and OGTT if HbA(1c) was >5.6% (HbA(1c) + OGTT), all with or without first-step preselection (p). The main outcome measures were costs (in Euros), true-positive type 2 diabetic cases, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), third-party payers, and societal perspectives.

RESULTS

After dominated strategies were excluded, the OGTT and HbA(1c) + OGTT from the perspective of the statutory health insurance remained, as did fasting glucose + OGTT and HbA(1c) + OGTT from the societal perspective. OGTTs (4.90 per patient) yielded the lowest costs from the perspective of the statutory health insurance and fasting glucose + OGTT (10.85) from the societal perspective. HbA(1c) + OGTT was the most expensive (21.44 and 31.77) but also the most effective (54% detected cases). ICERs, compared with the next less effective strategies, were 771 from the statutory health insurance and 831 from the societal perspective. In the Monte Carlo analysis, dominance relations remained unchanged in 100 and 68% (statutory health insurance and societal perspective, respectively) of simulated populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The most effective screening strategy was HbA(1c) combined with OGTT because of high participation. However, costs were lower when screening with fasting glucose tests combined with OGTT or OGTT alone. The decision regarding which is the most favorable strategy depends on whether the goal is to identify a high number of cases or to incur lower costs at reasonable effectiveness.