HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Online-Only Appendix All Versions of this Article: dc07-2452v1 31/8/1510    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Gæde, P. Articles by Pedersen, O. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gæde, P. Articles by Pedersen, O. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensified Versus Conventional Multifactorial Intervention in Type 2 Diabetes

Results and projections from the Steno-2 study

¹ Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
² IMS Health, Allschwil, Switzerland
³ Novo Nordisk Scandinavia, Copenhagen, Denmark
⁴ Department of Endocrinology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
⁵ Faculty of Health Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Corresponding author: Peter Gæde, phag{at}steno.dk

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 1.9 years). 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).

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Home Tight control of blood glucose and cardiovascular disease BMJ, October 17, 2008; 337(oct17_1): a2105 - a2105. [Full Text]