Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T16:00:20.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EXERCISE PROGRAMS IN TYPE 2 DIABETES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2012

Doug Coyle ,
Kathryn Coyle ,
Glen P. Kenny ,
Normand G. Boulé ,
George A. Wells ,
Michelle Fortier ,
Robert D. Reid ,
Penny Phillips  and
Ronald J. Sigal
Doug Coyle
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa; Ottawa Health Research Institute email: dcoyle@uottawa.ca
Kathryn Coyle
Affiliation:
Applied Health Economic Research Unit
Glen P. Kenny
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Normand G. Boulé
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa; University of Alberta
George A. Wells
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa; University of Ottawa Heart Institute
Michelle Fortier
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Robert D. Reid
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa Heart Institute
Penny Phillips
Affiliation:
Ottawa Health Research Institute
Ronald J. Sigal
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa; University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: A randomized controlled trial has shown that supervised, facility-based exercise training is effective in improving glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. However, these programs are associated with additional costs. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

Methods: Analysis used data from the Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise (DARE) clinical trial which compared three different exercise programs (resistance, aerobic or a combination of both) of 6 months duration with a control group (no exercise program). Clinical outcomes at 6 months were entered for individual patients into the UKPDS economic model for type 2 diabetes adapted for the Canadian context. From this, expected life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were estimated for all patients within the trial.

Results: The combined exercise program was the most expensive ($40,050) followed by the aerobic program ($39,250), the resistance program ($38,300) and no program ($31,075). QALYs were highest for combined (8.94), followed by aerobic (8.77), resistance (8.73) and no program (8.70). The incremental cost per QALY gained for the combined exercise program was $4,792 compared with aerobic alone, $8,570 compared with resistance alone, and $37,872 compared with no program. The combined exercise program remained cost-effective for all scenarios considered within sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions: A program providing training in both resistance and aerobic exercise was the most cost-effective of the alternatives compared. Based on previous funding decisions, exercise training for individuals with diabetes can be considered an efficient use of resources.

Keywords

Cost-effectivenesstype 2 diabetes mellitusaerobic exerciseresistance exercise
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 228 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Bertram, MY, Lim, SS, Barendregt, JJ, Vos, T. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of drug and lifestyle intervention following opportunistic screening for pre-diabetes in primary care. Diabetologia. 2010;53:875–881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Boulé, NG, Haddad, E, Kenny, GP, Wells, GA, Sigal, RJ. Effects of exercise on glycemic control and body mass in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. JAMA. 2001;286:1218–1227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Brazier, J, Roberts, , Deverill, M. The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Briggs, A, Sculpher, M, Buxton, M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: The role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 1994;3:95–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Briggs, AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:479–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Brun, JF, Bordenave, S, Mercier, J, Jaussent, A, Picot, MC, Préfaut, C. Cost-sparing effect of twice-weekly targeted endurance training in type 2 diabetics: A one-year controlled randomized trial. Diabetes Metab. 2008;34:258–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada [3rd Edition]. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006.Google Scholar
8.Clarke, P, Gray, A, Holman, R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making. 2002;22:340–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Clarke, PM, Gray, AM, Briggs, A, et al.A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with Type 2 diabetes: The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 68) Outcomes Model. Diabetologia. 2004;47:1747–1759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Coyle, D, Palmer, AJ, Tam, R. Economic evaluation of PioglitazoneHCl in the management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20:31–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Doubilet, P, Begg, CB, Weinstein, MC, et al.Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation: A practical approach. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:157–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Eves, ND, Plotnikoff, RC. Resistance Training and Type 2 Diabetes. Considerations for implementation at the population level. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:1933–1941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Goeree, R, Lim, ME, Hopkins, R, et al.Prevalence, total and excess costs of diabetes and related complications in Ontario, Canada. Can J Diabetes. 2009;33:35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Herman, WH, Hoerger, TJ, Brandle, M, et al.The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle modification or metformin in preventing type 2 diabetes in adults with impaired glucose tolerance. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:323–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Lamy, A, Yusuf, S, Pogue, J, Gafni, A. Cost implications of the use of ramipril in high-risk patients based on the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study. Circulation. 2003;107:960–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Reid, RD, Tulloch, HE, Sigal, RJ, et al.Effects of aerobic exercise, resistance exercise or both, on patient-reported health status and well-being in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomised trial. Diabetologia. 2010;53:632–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1183–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Sapsford, R. Deputy Minister's response to the investigation into the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision-making concerning the funding of Avastin for colorectal cancer patients. Letter dated August 26th 2009.Google Scholar
19.Selvin, E, Marinopoulos, S, Berkenblit, G, et al.Meta-analysis: Glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:421–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Sigal, RJ, Kenny, GP, Boulé, NG, et al.Effects of aerobic exercise, resistance exercise, or both on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:357–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Snowling, NJ, Hopkins, WG. Effects of different modes of exercise training on glucose control and risk factors for complications in type 2 diabetic patients: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:2518–2527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Stratton, IM, Adler, AI, Neil, HA, et al.Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): Prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000;321:405–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Thomas, DE, Elliott, EJ, Naughton, GA. Exercise for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD002968.Google Scholar
24.van Hout, BA, Al, MJ, Gordon, GS, et al.Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3:309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Ware, JE, Snow, KK, Kolinski, M, Gandeck, B. SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre; 1993.Google Scholar