Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Prevent and Control Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

Abstract

OBJECTIVETo synthesize the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to prevent and control diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe 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 (≤$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.RESULTSFifty-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 ...

Cost–effectiveness analysis of endoscopic eradication therapy for treatment of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus

“…-Complete eradication of dysplasia 92.6% - [28] -Residual dysplasia 7.4% - [28] -Natural history transition probabilities Full table available in reference - [26] Cost inputs RFA GB£1509 per session Average number of treatments = 3 [29,30] EMR GB£702 per session Average number of treatments = 1 [29,30] Stricture GB£3931 Average number of sessions to treat stricture is 1.3 (average) endoscopies and dilatations [19,[29][30] Perforation GB£7807 Cc score of 2-3. 6-day stay [30] Esophagectomy GB£9678 Excess bed days included.…”

“…6-day stay [30] Esophagectomy GB£9678 Excess bed days included. Total stay 12 days [29,30] Surveillance GB£681 And expert opinion [30] PPI drug costs Average annual cost = GB£61 - [31] PPI additional following surgery GB£61 - [31] H2 antagonist drugs following surgery GB£444.69 -ranitidine -…”

“…BE utilities were identified from published literature [29] (Table 1). However, the calculations used in the NICE model were based on a utility score of 1 for no BE.…”

Estudo comparativo das representações sociais sobre diabetes mellitus e pé diabético

“…Para a população diabética, as atividades de autocuidado associadas ao controle glicêmico podem prevenir complicações, hospitalizações e mortalidade relacionadas ao diabetes mellitus 4 . As condutas mais empregadas são a avaliação precoce 5 , o controle de fatores de risco glicêmico e cardiovascular 5 , orientação nutricional e controle alimentar 6 , hábitos de vida saudável 7,8 e, ainda, orientações mais específicas como o uso de um calçado adequado 9 .…”

Diabetes Mellitus tipo 2: caracterização da assistência à saúde, parâmetros clínicos e estado nutricional de idosos em uma Unidade Básica de Saúde, em dois períodos de acompanhamento

“…Entre as orientações específicas, propõe-se o controle da glicemia, da pressão arterial e dos cuidados com os pés, como intervenções adequadas à redução de custos para o sistema de saúde e na melhora da qualidade de vida dos usuários com DM (LI et al, 2010).…”