Article

Costs associated with the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Diabetes Prevention Program

The Diabetes Prevention Program Coordinating Center, Biostatistics Center, George Washington University, Rockville, Maryland 20852, USA.
Diabetes Care (Impact Factor: 8.57). 02/2003; 26(1):36-47. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.1.36
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To describe the costs of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) interventions to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes.
We describe the direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, and indirect costs of the placebo, metformin, and intensive lifestyle interventions over the 3-year study period of the DPP. Resource use and cost are summarized from the perspective of a large health system and society. Research costs are excluded.
The direct medical cost of laboratory tests to identify one subject with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) was $139. Over 3 years, the direct medical costs of the interventions were $79 per participant in the placebo group, $2,542 in the metformin group, and $2,780 in the lifestyle group. The direct medical costs of care outside the DPP were $272 less per participant in the metformin group and $432 less in the lifestyle group compared with the placebo group. Direct nonmedical costs were $9 less per participant in the metformin group and $1,445 greater in the lifestyle group compared with the placebo group. Indirect costs were $230 greater per participant in the metformin group and $174 less in the lifestyle group compared with the placebo group. From the perspective of a health system, the cost of the metformin intervention relative to the placebo intervention was $2,191 per participant and the cost of the lifestyle intervention was $2,269 per participant over 3 years. From the perspective of society, the cost of the metformin intervention relative to the placebo intervention was $2,412 per participant and the cost of the lifestyle intervention was $3,540 per participant over 3 years.
The metformin and lifestyle interventions are associated with modest incremental costs compared with the placebo intervention. The evaluation of costs relative to health benefits will determine the value of these interventions to health systems and society.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Michael Brandle, Jul 05, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
86 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assess the cost-effectiveness of a 16-week weight loss intervention (Weight-Wise) for low-income midlife women. A randomized controlled trial conducted in North Carolina in 2007 tested a weight loss intervention among 143 women (40-64 years old, mean BMI=35.1 kg/m(2)). Women were randomized to one of two arms-special intervention (n=72) and a wait-listed control group (n=71). Effectiveness measures included changes in weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. Cost-effectiveness measures calculated life years gained (LYG) from changes in weight, based on excess years life lost (YLL) algorithm. Intervention participants had statistically significant decreases in weight (kg) (-4.4 95% CI=-5.6, -3.2) and in systolic blood pressure (-6.2 mm Hg, 95% CI=-10.6, -1.7) compared to controls. Total cost of conducting Weight-Wise was $17,403, and the cost per participant in intervention group was $242. The incremental cost per life year gained (discounted) from a decrease in obesity was $1862. Our results suggest the Weight-Wise intervention may be a cost-effective approach to improving the health of low-income women.
    Preventive Medicine 09/2009; 49(5):390-5. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.09.007 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the perceived seriousness and risk of type 2 diabetes among low risk with high risk profile non-diabetic subjects and examine the relationship of perceived risk with multiple self-reported risk indicators. A cross-sectional population-based study among 4435 low risk profile and 2607 high risk profile non-diabetic residents of the Hoorn region, participating in a stepwise type 2 diabetes screening study. Main outcome measures were perceived seriousness and risk of diabetes in subjects categorized (low vs. high risk profile) using the Symptom Risk Questionnaire. 85.0% of the low risk and 81.2% of the high risk profile subjects perceived diabetes as a moderate to very serious disease. About half (43.0%) of all 7042 subjects reported that they do not know their risk of having diabetes. The mean perceived risk of having diabetes was slightly lower for the low risk compared with the high risk profile subjects (difference = 2.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.8% to 3.8%; P < 0.001). This difference was mostly explained by having a parent or sibling with diabetes, frequent thirst and claudication (difference = 0.6%; 95% CI = -0.7% to 1.9%). Interestingly, perceived risk decreased with increasing age within both groups (P for trend < 0.001). Both low risk and high risk profile subjects perceive diabetes as a serious disease. Even among those at high risk profile for type 2 diabetes, almost half appeared not to know their risk. Perceived risk of having diabetes was slightly lower for the low risk compared with the high risk profile subjects. Furthermore, perceived risk decreases with increasing age. This study points to a greater need to effectively address people's (mis)perceptions, and how to raise the awareness and understanding of type 2 diabetes and its risk factors in the general population in order to influence early detection and healthy lifestyle changes.
    Patient Education and Counseling 09/2008; 73(2):307-12. DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2008.06.009 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics are promising multidisciplinary fields that focus on studying the interactions between nutritional factors, genetic factors and health outcomes. Their goal is to achieve more efficient individual dietary intervention strategies aimed at preventing disease, improving quality of life and achieving healthy aging. Our studies, and those of many other investigators, using population-based and intervention studies have found evidence for interactions between dietary factors, genetic variants and biochemical markers of CVD. Now, the characterization of individuals who may respond better to one type of dietary recommendation than another can be begun. Thus, a low-fat low-cholesterol strategy may be particularly efficacious in lowering the plasma cholesterol levels of those subjects carrying the apoE4 allele at the APOE gene. HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are also modulated by dietary, behavioural and genetic factors. It has been reported that the effect of PUFA intake on HDL-C concentrations is modulated by an APOA1 genetic polymorphism. Thus, subjects carrying the A allele at the -75 G/A polymorphism show an increase in HDL-C with increased intakes of PUFA, whereas those homozygotes for the more common G allele have the expected lowering of HDL-C levels with increased intake of PUFA. Variability at the hepatic lipase gene is also associated with interactions between intake of fat and HDL-C concentrations that could shed some light on the different abilities of certain ethnic groups to adapt to new nutritional environments. This knowledge should lead to successful dietary recommendations partly based on genetic factors that may help to reduce cardiovascular risk more efficiently than the current universal recommendations.
    Proceedings of The Nutrition Society 03/2004; 63(1):145-52. DOI:10.1079/PNS2003313 · 4.94 Impact Factor