Validation of the CORE Diabetes Model against epidemiological and clinical studies.
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the CORE Diabetes Model by comparing results from model simulations with observed outcomes from published epidemiological and clinical studies in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
A total of 66 second- (internal) and third- (external) order validation analyses were performed across a range of complications and outcomes simulated by the CORE Diabetes Model (amputation, cataract, hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis, macular oedema, myocardial infarction, nephropathy, neuropathy, retinopathy, stroke and mortality). Published studies were reproduced in the model by recreating cohorts in terms of demographics, baseline risk factors and complications, treatment patterns and patient management strategies, and simulating the progress of the cohort to an equivalent time horizon.
Correlation analysis on results from 66 validation simulations produced an R2 value of 0.9224 (perfect fit = 1). A correlation plot of published study data versus values simulated by the CORE Diabetes Model had a trend line with a gradient of 1.0187 (perfect fit = 1). Validation analyses in type 1 and type 2 diabetes were associated with R2 values of 0.9778 and 0.8861 respectively. Correlation of second-order validation analyses (model predictions versus observed outcomes in studies used to construct the model) produced an R2 value of 0.9574, and the value for third-order analyses (model predictions versus observed outcomes in studies not used to construct the model) was 0.9023.
The CORE Diabetes Model provides an accurate representation of patient outcomes when compared to 66 studies of diabetes and its complications. Model flexibility ensures it can be used to compare diabetes management strategies in different cohorts across a variety of clinical settings.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Two basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine once daily and insulin detemir once or twice daily, are marketed in Canada. Objective: To estimate the long-term costs of insulin glargine once daily (QD) versus insulin detemir once or twice daily (QD or BID) for type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus from a Canadian provincial government's perspective. A cost-minimization analysis comparing insulin glargine (IGlarg) to insulin detemir (IDet) was conducted using a validated computer simulation model, the CORE Diabetes Model. Lifetime direct medical costs including costs of insulin treatment and diabetes complications were projected. T1DM and T2DM patients' daily insulin dose (T1DM: IGlarg QD 26.2 IU; IDet BID 33.6 IU; T2DM: IGlarg QD 47.2 IU; IDet QD 65.7 IU or IDet BID 80.4 IU) was derived from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. All patients were assumed to stay on the same treatment for life. Costs were discounted at 5% per annum and reported in 2010 Canadian Dollars. The meta-analysis showed T1DM and T2DM patients had similar HbA(1c) change from baseline when receiving IGlarg compared to IDet (T1DM: 0.002%-points; p = 0.97; T2DM: -0.05%-points; p = 0.28). Treatment of T1DM patients with IGlarg versus IDet BID resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4231 per patient. Treatment of T2DM patients with IGlarg resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4659 per patient versus IDet QD and cost savings of $8709 per patient versus IDet BID. Similar HbA(1c) change from baseline can be achieved with a lower IGlarg than IDet dose. From the perspective of a Canadian provincial government, treatment of T1DM and T2DM patients with IGlarg instead of IDet can generate long-term cost savings. Main limitations include trial data were derived from multi-country studies rather than the Canadian population and self-monitoring blood glucose costs were not included.Journal of Medical Economics 03/2011; 14(2):207-16.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Exenatide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist for adjuvant treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), has been shown to be as effective as insulin glargine (IG) for reducing glycated hemoglobin levels combined with metformin or/and sulphonylureas. Exenatide is associated to weight reduction and a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide as compared to IG in obese patients with T2DM not achieving an adequate blood glucose control from the perspective of the Spanish healthcare system. Pharmacoeconomic model inputs were obtained from an obese subpopulation (BMI ≥ 30 k/m(2)) of an international, randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing exenatide with IG in poorly controlled T2DM patients, and were supplemented with country-specific data. Exenatide was associated to improvements in life-years gained and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.11 and 0.62 respectively versus IG. Direct costs were € 9,306 higher as compared to IG (€ 47,010 versus € 37,704, with increased pharmacy costs as the main driver). Exenatideís incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was € 15,068 per QALY gained versus IG. Exenatide was associated to greater clinical benefits and higher costs in obese T2DM patients as compared to IG. Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of € 30,000 per QALY gained in the Spanish setting, exenatide represents an efficient option in comparison with IG.Endocrinología y Nutrición 06/2011; 58(7):331-40.
- The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease 01/2008; 8(1).