Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T21:09:26.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lifestyle intervention to prevent diabetes in men and women with impaired glucose tolerance is cost-effective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2007

Peter Lindgren ,
Jaana Lindström ,
Jaakko Tuomilehto ,
Matti Uusitupa ,
Markku Peltonen ,
Bengt Jönsson ,
Ulf de Faire  and
Mai-Lis Hellénius
Peter Lindgren
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet and European Health Economics
Jaana Lindström
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute
Jaakko Tuomilehto
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Matti Uusitupa
Affiliation:
University of Kuopio
Markku Peltonen
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute
Bengt Jönsson
Affiliation:
Stockholm School of Economics
Ulf de Faire
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska Hospital
Mai-Lis Hellénius
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm County Council
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS) was a randomized intervention program that evaluated the effect of intensive lifestyle modification on the development of diabetes mellitus type 2 in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. As such, a program is demanding in terms of resources; it is necessary to assess whether it would be money well spent. This determination was the purpose of this study.

Methods: We developed a simulation model to assess the economic consequences of an intervention like the one studied in DPS in a Swedish setting. The model used data from the trial itself to assess the effect of intervention on the risk of diabetes and on risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Results from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study were used to estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. Cost data were derived from Swedish studies. The intervention was assumed to be applied to eligible patients from a population-based screening program of 60-year-olds in the County of Stockholm from which the baseline characteristics of the patients was used.

Results: The model predicted that implementing the program would be cost-saving from the healthcare payers' perspective. Furthermore, it was associated with an increase in estimated survival of .18 years. Taking into consideration the increased consumption by patients due to their longer survival, the predicted cost-effectiveness ratio was 2,363€ per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Conclusions: Lifestyle intervention directed toward high-risk subjects would be cost-saving for the healthcare payer and highly cost-effective for society as a whole.

Keywords

Diabetes mellitus type 2Primary preventionLifestyleGlucose intoleranceEconomics
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 177 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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.American Diabetes Association. Economic consequences of diabetes mellitus in the U.S. in 1997. Diabetes Care. 1998; 21: 296–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Barnard, RJ, Aronson, WJ, Tymchuk, CN, Ngo, TH. Prostate cancer: Another aspect of the insulin-resistance syndrome? Obes Rev. 2002; 3: 303–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Bonow, RO, Gheorghiade, M. The diabetes epidemic: A national and global crisis. Am J Med. 2004; 116 (Suppl 5A): 2S–10S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Centre for Epidemiology. The Swedish Hospital Discharge Register. Stockholm: The National Board of Health and Welfare; 1999.Google Scholar
5.Centre for Epidemiology. The Cause of Death Register. Stockholm: The National Board of Health and Welfare; 2001.Google Scholar
6.Chale, SS, Swai, AB, Mujinja, PG, McLarty, DG. Must diabetes be a fatal disease in Africa? Study of costs of treatment. BMJ. 1992; 304: 1215–1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.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
8.Colangelo, LA, Gapstur, SM, Gann, PH, Dyer, AR, Liu, K. Colorectal cancer mortality and factors related to the insulin resistance syndrome. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002; 11: 385–391.Google Scholar
9.DECODE Study Group, the European Diabetes Epidemiology Group. Glucose tolerance and cardiovascular mortality: Comparison of fasting and 2-hour diagnostic criteria. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161: 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Within-trial cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention or metformin for the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26: 2518–2523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Ekman, M.Two essays in health economics. Consumption and production by age with emphasis on health care expenditures and economic evaluation of beta-blocker therapy in heart failure. Managerial Economics Section & Centre for Health Economics. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics; 2001.Google Scholar
12.Eriksson, JG, Lindstrom, J, Valle, TT et al. , Prevention of type II diabetes in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: The Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS) in Finland: Study design and 1-year interim report on the feasibility of the lifestyle intervention programme. Diabetologia. 1999; 42: 793–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Guastamacchia, E, Resta, F, Triggiani, V et al. , Evidence for a putative relationship between type 2 diabetes and neoplasia with particular reference to breast cancer: Role of hormones, growth factors and specific receptors. Curr Drug Targets Immune Endocr Metabol Disord. 2004; 4: 59–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Hellenius, M-L, Rosell, M, Sandgren, J, De, Faire U. High prevalence of overweight and the metabolic syndrome among 60 year old women and med in Stockholm, Sweden. Atherosclerosis. 2000; 151: 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Henriksson, F, Agardh, CD, Berne, C et al. , Direct medical costs for patients with type 2 diabetes in Sweden. J Intern Med. 2000; 248: 387–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Johannesson, M. The cost-effectiveness of hypertension treatment in Sweden. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995; 7: 242–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Johannesson, M. At what coronary risk level is it cost-effective to initiate cholesterol lowering drug treatment in primary prevention? Eur Heart J. 2001; 22: 919–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Jonsson, B. Revealing the cost of type II diabetes in Europe. Diabetologia. 2002; 45: S5–S12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Knowler, WC, Barrett-Connor, E, Fowler, SE et al. , Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 393–403.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Kothari, V, Stevens, RJ, Adler, AI et al. , UKPDS 60: Risk of stroke in type 2 diabetes estimated by the UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine. Stroke. 2002; 33: 1776–1781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Lindstrom, J, Ilanne-Parikka, P, Aunola, S et al. , Lifestyle changes result in a permanent reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes—the follow-up results of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. Submitted manuscript.Google Scholar
22.McKendry, JB. Direct costs of diabetes care: A survey in Ottawa, Ontario 1986. Can J Public Health. 1989; 80: 124–128.Google ScholarPubMed
23.Meltzer, D. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Economics. 1997; 16: 33–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Palmer, AJ, Roze, S, Valentine, WJ et al. , Intensive lifestyle changes or metformin in patients with impaired glucose tolerance: Modeling the long-term health economic implications of the diabetes prevention program in Australia, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Clin Ther. 2004; 26: 304–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Pan, XR, Li, GW, Hu, YH et al. , Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance. The Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care. 1997; 20: 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Phillips, M, Salmeron, J. Diabetes in Mexico–A serious and growing problem. World Health Stat Q. 1992; 45: 338–346.Google ScholarPubMed
27.Sinagra, D, Amato, C, Scarpilta, AM et al. , Metabolic syndrome and breast cancer risk. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2002; 6: 55–59.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Sonnenberg, FA, Beck, JR. Markov models in medical decision making: A practical guide. Medical Decision Making. 1993; 13: 322–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Stevens, RJ, Kothari, V, Adler, AI, Stratton, IM. The UKPDS risk engine: A model for the risk of coronary heart disease in Type II diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci (Lond). 2001; 101: 671–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Tuomilehto, J, Lindstrom, J, Eriksson, JG et al. , Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1343–1350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Zethraeus, N, Molin, T, Henriksson, P, Jönsson, B. Cost of coronary heart disease and stroke: The case of Sweden. J Intern Med. 1999; 246: 151–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Zimmet, P, Alberti, KG, Shaw, J. Global and societal implications of the diabetes epidemic. Nature. 2001; 414: 782–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed