Cost-effectiveness of Intensified versus conventional multifactorial intervention in type 2 diabetes: Results and projections from the Steno-2 study
You are here
Gaede, P and Valentine, WJ and Palmer, AJ and Tucker, DMD and Lammert, M and Parving, HH and Pedersen, O, Cost-effectiveness of Intensified versus conventional multifactorial intervention in type 2 diabetes: Results and projections from the Steno-2 study, Diabetes Care, 31, (8) pp. 1510-1515. ISSN 0149-5992 (2008) [Refereed Article]
OBJECTIVE - To assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus conventional therapy for 8 years as applied in the Steno-2 study in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A Markov model was developed to incorporate event and risk data from Steno-2 and account Danish-specific costs to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and lifetime direct medical costs expressed in year 2005 Euros. Clinical and cost outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes and discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS - Intensive treatment was associated with increased life expectancy, QALE, and lifetime costs compared with conventional treatment. Mean ± SD undiscounted life expectancy was 18.1 ± 7.9 years with intensive treatment and 16.2 ± 7.3 years with conventional treatment (difference 1.9years). Discounted life expectancy was 13.4 ± 4.8 years with intensive treatment and 12.4 ± 4.5 years with conventional treatment. Lifetime costs (discounted) for intensive and conventional treatment were €45,521 ± 19,697 and €41,319 ± 27,500, respectively (difference €4,202). Increased costs with intensive treatment were due to increased pharmacy and consultation costs. Discounted QALE was 1.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) higher for intensive (10.2 ± 3.6 QALYs) versus conventional (8.6 ± 2.7 QALYs) treatment, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2,538 per QALY gained. This is considered a conservative estimate because accounting prescription of generic drugs and capturing indirect costs would further favor intensified therapy. CONCLUSIONS - From a health care payer perspective in Denmark, intensive therapy was more cost-effective than conventional treatment. Assuming that patients in both arms were treated in a primary care setting, intensive therapy became dominant (cost- and lifesaving). © 2008 by the American Diabetes Association.
Repository Staff Only:
item control page