ArticlePDF Available

United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72)

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This study estimated the economic efficiency (1) of intensive blood glucose control and tight blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes who also had hypertension, and (2) of metformin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients who were overweight. We conducted cost-utility analysis based on patient-level data from a randomised clinical controlled trial involving 4,209 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes conducted in 23 hospital-based clinics in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as part of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). Three different policies were evaluated: intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylurea/insulin; intensive blood glucose control with metformin for overweight patients; and tight blood pressure control of hypertensive patients. Incremental cost : effectiveness ratios were calculated based on the net cost of healthcare resources associated with these policies and on effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years gained, estimated over a lifetime from within-trial effects using the UKPDS Outcomes Model. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years gained (in year 2004 UK prices) for intensive blood glucose control was 6,028 UK pounds, and for blood pressure control was 369 UK pounds. Metformin therapy was cost-saving and increased quality-adjusted life expectancy. Each of the three policies evaluated has a lower cost per quality-adjusted life year gained than that of many other accepted uses of healthcare resources. The results provide an economic rationale for ensuring that care of patients with type 2 diabetes corresponds at least to the levels of these interventions.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Diabetologia (2005) 48: 868877
DOI 10.1007/s00125-005-1717-3
ARTICLE
P. M. Clarke
.
A. M. Gray
.
A. Briggs
.
R. J. Stevens
.
D. R. Matthews
.
R. R. Holman
.
on behalf of the UK
Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS)
Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood
pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72)
Received: 28 August 2004 / Accepted: 3 December 2004 / Published online: 15 April 2005
# Springer-Verlag 2005
Abstract Aims/hypothesis: This study estimated the eco-
nomic efficiency (1) of intensive blood glucose control and
tight blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes
who also had hypertension, and (2) of metformin therapy in
type 2 diabetic patients who were overweight. Methods: We
conducted cost-utility analysis based on patient-level data
from a randomised clinical controlled trial involving 4,209
patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes conducted in
23 hospital-based clinics in England, Scotland and North-
ern Ireland as part of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study
(UKPDS). Three different policies were evaluated: inten-
sive blood glucose control with sulphonylurea/insulin; in-
tensive blood glucose control with metformin for overweight
patients; and tight blood pressure control of hypertensive
patients. Incremental cost : effectiveness ratios were calcu-
lated based on the net cost of healthcare resources asso-
ciated with these policies and on effectiveness in terms of
quality-adjusted life years gained, estimated over a lifetime
from within-trial effects using the UKPDS Outcomes Model.
Results: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years
gained (in year 2004 UK prices) for intensive blood glucose
control was £6,028, and for blood pressure control was £369.
Metformin therapy was cost-saving and increased quality-
adjusted life expectancy. Conclusions/interpretation: Each
of the three policies evaluated has a lower cost per quality-
adjusted life year gained than that of many other accepted
uses of healthcare resources. The results provide an econom-
ic rationale for ensuring that care of patients with type 2 di-
abetes corresponds at least to the levels of these interventions.
Keywords Cost-utility analysis
.
Hypertensive
.
Metformin
.
Overweight patients
.
Quality-adjusted life
years
.
Type 2 diabetes
.
United Kingdom Prospective
Diabetes Study
Abbreviations FPG: fasting plasma glucose
.
GP: general
practitioner
.
MI: myocardial infarction
.
QALY: quality-
adjusted life year
.
UKPDS: United Kingdom Prospective
Diabetes Study
.
UKPDS OM: UKPDS Outcomes Model
Introduction
The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS)
established that a more intensive blood glucose control pol-
icy (aiming for a fasting plasma glucose [FPG] concen-
tration of <6.0 mmol/l) reduced the relative risk of any
diabetes-related endpoint by 12% and of microvascular com-
plications by 25% [1] in newly diagnosed patients with di-
abetes, and that the cost per year free of complications is less
than £1,200 [2]. The UKPDS also showed that tighter blood
pressure control (aiming at a blood pressure of less than
150/85 mmHg in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes)
reduced diabetes-related endpoints by 24% and deaths re-
lated to diabetes by 32% [3], and that the cost per life year
gained was approximately £720 [4]. Finally, the UKPDS
showed that the use of metformin for more intensive blood
glucose control in overweight patients conferred a 32%
relative risk reduction for any diabetes-related endpoint and
a 42% risk reduction for diabetes-related deaths [5], and that
the increased life expectancy associated with this interven-
P. M. Clarke (*)
.
A. M. Gray
.
A. Briggs
Health Economics Research Centre,
Department of Public Health, University of Oxford,
Old Road Campus, Headington,
Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK
e-mail: philip.clarke@dphpc.ox.ac.uk
Tel.: +44-1865-226691
Fax: +44-1865-226842
P. M. Clarke
.
R. J. Stevens
.
D. R. Matthews
.
R. R. Holman
Diabetes Trials Unit,
Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine,
University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK
P. M. Clarke
Australian Centre for Diabetes Strategies,
Prince of Wales Hospital,
Sydney, Australia
R. J. Stevens
.
D. R. Matthews
.
R. R. Holman
Oxford Centre for Diabetes,
Endocrinology and Metabolism,
University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK
tion was accompanied by net expenditure savings over the
trial due to lower complication costs [6].
In comparison with many other well-accepted health
interventions, these diabetes interventions are highly cost-
effective and implementing them would increase the total
health benefits obtained from the current healthcare budget.
However, such comparisons are restricted by the fact that
the results reported to date from the UKPDS have only
measured outcomes in terms of life years gained [ 4, 6]or
endpoint-free time [2].
Maximum comparability will be obtained if the out-
comes of all interventions can be expressed in the same
units of measurement, and the measure that has gained most
currency amongst health economists has been the quality-
adjusted life year (QALY), a composite measure that aims
to incorporate survival and quality of life in a single index
[7]. Economic evaluations using QALYs as the principal
measure of outcomeoften termed cost-utility studies
have become increasingly popular in the literature and have
also been adopted by a number of health technology assess-
ment agencies as the methodology of choice [8]. We report
here the cost-utility in type 2 diabetes of each of the three
major UKPDS interventions: intensive blood glucose con-
trol with sulphonylureas/insulin, intensive blood glucose
control with metformin therapy in overweight patients, and
tight blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.
We make use of primary data on resource use and com-
plications during the trial follow-up period, coupled with
estimates modelled from UKPDS data on the immediate
and long-term quality of life effects and cost implications of
microvascular and macrovascular diabetes-related compli-
cations, to estimate the lifetime costs and effects of these
interventions in terms of the cost per QALYs gained.
Materials and methods
Patients, setting and comparison The UKPDS has been
described previously [9]. Briefly, between 1977 and 1991, a
total of 5,102 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes
aged 2565 years, who were shown subsequently to have an
FPG >6.0 mmol/l on two occasions, were recruited to the
study. Following a dietary run-in period, 4,209 patients had
FPG concentrations of 6.115 mmol/l without symptoms of
hyperglycaemia. Of these, 3,867 were randomised either to
a conventional glucose control policy (mainly through diet,
1,138 patients), or to an intensive glucose control policy
with insulin (1,156) or sulphonylureas (1,573). A further
342 overweight patients (>120% ideal body weight), as-
signed to an intensive glucose control policy with metfor-
min, were compared with 411 overweight patients assigned
to the conventional glucose control policy [ 5]. The aim of
the conventional policy was to maintain patients with an
FPG <15 mmol/l without symptoms of hyperglycaemia
while trying to obtain the lowest FPG attainable with diet
alone. The intensive policy aimed for FPG <6.0 mmol/l and,
in patients treated with short-acting in addition to long-
acting insulin, pre-meal glucose concentrations of 47
mmol/l.
An embedded study randomised 1,148 hypertensive pa-
tients to a less tight blood pressure control policy (n=390,
aiming to maintain blood pressure <200/<105 mmHg, modi-
fied in 1992 to <180/<105 mmHg) or to a tightbloodpressure
control policy (n=758, aiming for <150/85 mmHg) using an
ACE inhibitor (captopril) or a beta blocker (atenolol). If
blood pressure control criteria were not met, additional anti-
hypertensive agents were added in a predefined stepwise
fashion.
The study design and protocol amendments, which con-
form to the guidelines of the Declarations of Helsinki as
revised in 2000, were approved by the Central Oxford Re-
search Ethics Committee and by the equivalent committees at
each centre. Each patient gave informed witnessed consent.
Economic evaluation Incremental cost-effectiveness ana-
lyses were undertaken for each intervention in which the
incremental net cost and net effectiveness were calculated in
relation to the comparator, and expressed as a ratio. As the
economic evaluation perspective was that of the healthcare
purchaser, only direct health service costs were included.
These included treatment costs, visits to a nurse or a general
practitioner (GP) based on standard practice assumptions
(see below) and the costs of treating diabetic complications.
Not included in this analysis were non-medical costs such
as out-of-pocket expenses incurred when visiting clinics,
cost of informal care provided by family members and pro-
duction losses resulting from work absences, long-term dis-
ability or premature death, information on which was not
readily available. We adopted the QALY [7] as this measure
captures both increases in life expectancy and improved
quality of life which result from prevention of complica-
tions, providing a composite outcome measure of fatal and
non-fatal events that permits comparison between many
health interventions.
We compared the following treatment policies: (1) con-
ventional vs intensive blood glucose control (with insulin or
sulphonylureas); (2) conventional vs intensive blood glu-
cose control (with metformin) in overweight patients; and
(3) less tight blood vs tight blood pressure control (with
ACE inhibitors or beta blockers) in hypertensive patients. In
our main analyses we treated each of these interventions as
an independent policy.
Resource data and costs For each patient, doses of allocated
medications for blood glucose and blood pressure lowering
were collected routinely. Patients were asked also on a
regular basis if they were taking aspirin, hormone replace-
ment therapy, antidepressants, steroids, or other drugs. To
measure hospital inpatient episode costs, the date and dura-
tion of any admissions were collected at each clinic visit and
the costs estimated using previously reported methods [2].
The use of non-inpatient healthcare resources was estimated
using data from a cross-sectional survey conducted between
January 1996 and September 1997, which collected informa-
tion on domiciliary, clinic and telephone contacts with GPs,
nurses, podiatrists, opticians, dieticians and with eye and
other hospital clinics over the previous 4 months.
869
Table 1 summarises the main sources of information on
therapy unit costs, taken from UK national statistics [10,
11]. To obtain a cost per patient within the trial period, the
resource volumes used by each patient were multiplied by
these unit costs. We used previously reported equations [12]
to estimate the immediate (year of occurrence) and long-
term (all subsequent years) cost of major diabetes-related
complications, some of which are reproduced in Table 1.
The estimated immediate inpatient cost for a typical indi-
vidual ranged from £1,366 for a fatal myocardial infarction
(MI) event to £10,029 for an amputation. In all subsequent
yearsthat is, for patients with a history of these conditions
hospital costs were elevated by £550 and £358, respec-
tively. Similarly, estimates for the increase in average annual
non-inpatient costs associated with any macrovascular com-
plications were £373 in the year of occurrence and £306 in
subsequent years, while for microvascular complications
the increased cost was £324 and £242, respectively.
Undiscounted costs are reported as well as net present
values using the UK Treasury recommended 3.5% discount
rate [13]. The effect of either a higher or lower discount rate
was examined in the sensitivity analysis. All costs are
reported in year 2004 values of pounds sterling (£1=1.5).
All patients participating in the UKPDS, regardless of
their randomised allocation, attended clinics four or three
times a year. As the pattern of visits is likely to be different
in routine practiceespecially for the conventional group
we have reported incremental costs removing UKPDS
protocol-driven elements and using a pattern of clinic visits
reflecting a previously reported survey of GP and specialist
clinical opinion on the implementation of intensive policy
and blood pressure policy [11]. The cost of implementation
by policy and type of therapy is listed in Table 1. The effects
of higher implementation costs are considered in the sen-
sitivity analyses. The incremental annual cost of intensive
blood glucose control over conventional therapy was £111
when the patient was on tablets and £266 on insulin. Using a
similar method it was estimated that patients on tight blood
pressure control cost an additional £49 per annum regard-
less of their glucose policy.
Outcomes We estimated the difference in QALYexpectancy
for the different treatment policies. The QALY adjusts
length of life for quality of life by assigning a value or health
utility (where zero represents death and one represents full
health) for each year of life. Complications have been
Table 1 Main unit costs
for therapies and cost of
complications
a
All costs for complications are
for a representative individual
(set to the UKPDS mean popu-
lation values, i.e. a 58.63-year-
old male)
Item Unit cost £s 2004 Source
Therapy costs
Metformin (500 mg/850 mg tablet) 0.03/0.04 Drug tariff 2004
Chlorpropamide (100 mg/250 mg) 0.09/0.10 Drug tariff 2004
Glibenclamide (2.5 mg/5 mg) 0.03/0.05 Drug tariff 2004
Glipizide (2.5 mg/5 mg) 0.05/0.08 Drug tariff 2004
Ultralente insulin 1,000-unit
vial/750-unit cartridge
9.80 Drug tariff 2004
Soluble insulin 1,000-unit
vial/750-unit cartridge
9.80/10.20 Drug tariff 2004
Atenolol (25/50/100 mg) 0.06/0.07/0.09 Drug tariff 2004
Captopril (12.5/25/50 mg) 0.04/0.06/0.07 Drug tariff 2004
Other drugs Cost per item Drug tariff 2004
Implementation unit costs
General practitioner (clinic visit) 23 Netten and Curtis 2003 [10]
Practice nurse (home visit/surgery visit) 10/8
Dietician 9
Hospital eye clinic 42
Estimated standard practice costs by treatment
Conventional primarily on diet/or tablets 57 Unit costs multiplied by average
resource use reported in Table 3
of UKPDS 63 [11]
Conventional on Insulin 140
Intensive on tablets 168
Intensive on insulin 405
Immediate (subsequent years) costs of selected complications
a
Hospital costs
Fatal myocardial infarction 1,366 UKPDS 65 [12] adjusted for
inflation using the Hospital &
Community Services Pay And
Price Index
Non-fatal myocardial infarction 4,825 (550)
Non-fatal stroke 2,806 (295)
Amputation 10,029 (358)
Non-hospital costs
Macrovascular events 373 (306)
Microvascular events 324 (242)
870
shown to affect the quality of life of patients with type 2
diabetes [14]. Unlike previous evaluations of treatment for
diabetes that have used reference values for a limited num-
ber of complications [15], we estimated the effect of com-
plications using health utilities measured using the EQ-5D
health status questionnaire in a survey of 3,192 patients still
participating in the UKPDS in 1997 [16]. Using these data
the mean utility for a patient with diabetes who was free of
microvascular and macrovascular complications was found
to be 0.79, which is similar to people of the same age who do
not have diabetes. Patients with a history of complications
were found to have lower utility, and the following decre-
ments were estimated: 0.06 for an MI; 0.09 for other
ischaemic heart disease or angina; 0.16 for stroke; 0.11
for heart failure; 0.28 for amputation; and 0.07 for blind-
ness in one eye [16]. It was assumed that the occurrence of
multiple complications has an additive effect on utility and
the same decrements were applied to patients with compa-
rable health states regardless of their treatment policy.
For each patient available at the end of follow-up, the
UKPDS Outcomes Model (UKPDS OM), a newly devel-
oped simulation model which has been fully documented
elsewhere [17], was used to estimate the time from end of
follow-up to the first occurrence of each of the seven dia-
betes-related endpoints (MI, angina, stroke, heart failure,
amputation, renal failure and blindness in one eye) and to
death in order to estimate expected QALYs. In brief, the
UKPDS OM is based on an integrated system of parametric
equations which predict the annual probability of any of the
above endpoints occurring and Monte Carlo methods to
predict the occurrence of events. A key aspect of this model
is its ability to capture the clustering or interaction of dif-
ferent types of complications at the individual patient level.
This may arise not only because many events share com-
mon risk factors, but also due to event-related dependence,
i.e. when the occurrence of an event substantially increases
the likelihood of another event occurring [18]. The model is
a probabilistic discrete-time illness-death model [19], rather
than a Markov model, which simulates a patients life ex-
perience using annual cycles to calculate the probability of
death or of experiencing any of the specified complications.
Patients start with a given health status (e.g. no complica-
tions) and can have one or more non-fatal complications and/
or die in any model cycle by comparing estimated proba-
bilities with random numbers drawn from a uniform distri-
bution ranging from zero to one to determine whether an event
occurs. When a patient experiences a complication, their util-
ity is permanently decremented such that they accumulate
QALYs at a slower rate. Trial cohorts were run through the
model until all patients had died. For further details of the
model see http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/Outcomesmodel.
In these simulations we assume that every patient from
the end of the trial has the overall mean HbA
1
c and blood
pressure levels, regardless of randomised policy. The only
difference in hazard between the groups is due to compli-
cations experienced during the trial. The estimated QALY
gain using our model will therefore be conservative as it
assumes that there is no continuing benefit of therapy. We
report undiscounted benefits along with outcomes discount-
ed at 3.5% and 6% per year.
Analysis Results are reported as mean values and SDs or
mean differences with CIs, and as cost to effectiveness
ratios. To provide a visual representation of the results, the
costs and health outcomes are mapped onto the cost-ef-
fectiveness plane and reported as acceptability curves [20].
The effect on our main results of uncertainty surrounding
some aspects of cost and the utility values used in the study
were examined using sensitivity analyses.
Results
Costs Tables 2, 3, 4 show the mean cost per patient over the
duration of the study for each of the three interventions
considered, by category of cost and by randomised allo-
Table 2 Mean and SD costs per patient during the trial follow-up period and mean (95% CI) cost differences for conventional vs intensive
blood glucose control with insulin or sulphonylureas, by cost category (£s 2004)
Conventional Intensive Mean cost
difference (95% CI)
per patient
a
Mean SD Mean SD
Antidiabetic treatment 620 957 1,299 1,196 678 (607, 750)
Anti-hypertensive treatment 430 668 427 666 3(49, 43)
Cost of implementation 699 315 2,160 865 1,461 (1,424, 1,498)
Total cost of treatment 1,749 1,399 3,885 1,992 2,136 (2,009, 2,263)
Within-trial hospital inpatient costs 5,212 15,492 4,159 8,557 1,053 (288, 1,818)
Within-trial non-hospital and outpatient costs 2,528 1,084 2,538 1,092 10 (66, 85)
Projected hospital inpatient costs 13,322 38,052 13,476 37,428 154 (3,265, 3,573)
Projected non-hospital and outpatient costs 3,708 3,821 3,807 3,881 98 (259, 455)
Total cost of complications 24,771 43,276 23,980 41,106 791 (4,586, 3,003)
Total costs, undiscounted 26,516 43,438 27,865 41,310 1,349 (2,455, 5,153)
Total costs, 3.5% discount rate 14,984 17,888 15,868 14,465 884 (483, 2,250)
Total costs, 6% discount rate 11,169 13,340 11,852 9,261 683 (230, 1,597)
a
Negative cost differences indicate cost-savings associated with more intensive therapies. Sub-totals may not sum exactly due to rounding
871
cation. The intensive blood glucose control policy increased
the antidiabetic treatment costs by £678 (95% CI 607, 7,50)
and the incremental costs of visits and self-testing in a
standard practice setting by £1,461 (1,424, 1,498), when
compared with conventional glucose control (Table 2).
However, the effect of this policy was also to reduce mean
hospitalisation cost per patient over the median 10.4 years of
follow-up, from £5,212 in the conventional policy group to
£4,159 in the intensive policy group. Simulated post-trial
hospitalisation costs were similar in the conventional and
intensive groups (£13,322 vs £13,476). When non-hospital
costs also were taken into account, the overall intensive
policy reduction in cost of complications was £791 (4,586,
3,003). Combining both therapy costs and savings achieved,
the incremental cost of intensive blood glucose control with
insulin or sulphonylureas was £1,349 (2,455, 5,153), or
£884 (483, 2,250) when discounted.
Intensive blood glucose control with metformin in over-
weight patients increased therapy costs by £1,742 (1,521,
1,963) compared with those on conventional therapy, main-
ly due to the costs associated with implementing this policy
in a standard practice setting (Table 3). The cost of compli-
cations was £2,765 (11,695, 6,166) less per patient in the
metformin group, compared with conventional policy. As
the increased cost of metformin therapy (including standard
practice costs) is less than the reduction in the cost of com-
plications, there is on average a net cost-saving from the
intervention of £1,023 (9,972, 7,926) per patient.
The costs for the embedded hypertension study, which
had a shorter median duration of follow-up of 8.4 years, are
Table 3 Mean and SD costs per patient during the trial follow-up period and mean (95% CI) cost differences for conventional vs intensive
blood glucose control with metformin in overweight patients, by cost category (£s 2004)
Conventional Intensive Mean cost
difference (95% CI)
per patient
a
Mean SD Mean SD
Antidiabetic treatment 640 997 776 639 136 (18, 254)
Anti-hypertensive treatment 626 796 612 814 15 (131, 101)
Cost of implementation 674 193 2,295 748 1,621 (1,539, 1,702)
Total cost of treatment 1,941 1,486 3,682 1,598 1,742 (1,521, 1,963)
Within-trial hospital inpatient costs 7,283 23,498 4,233 8,151 3,050 (5,666, 433)
Within-trial non-hospital and outpatient costs 2,834 1,077 2,834 1,044 0 (153, 152)
Projected hospital inpatient costs 13,515 38,531 13,591 35,580 76 (8,118, 8,270)
Projected non-hospital and outpatient costs 3,717 3,941 3,927 3,829 209 (373, 792)
Total cost of complications 27,350 46,842 24,585 39,609 2,765 (11,695, 6,166)
Total costs, undiscounted 29,290 47,056 28,267 39,764 1,023 (9,972, 7,926)
Total costs, 3.5% discount rate 16,941 23,193 15,920 13,678 1,021 (4,291, 2,249)
Total costs, 6% discount rate 12,798 18,836 11,792 8,557 1,006 (3,251, 1,239)
a
Negative cost differences indicate cost-savings associated with more intensive therapies. Sub-totals may not sum exactly due to rounding
Table 4 Mean and SD costs per patient during the trial follow-up period and mean (95% CI) cost differences for tight vs less tight blood
pressure control, by cost category (£s 2004)
Less tight Tight Mean cost
difference (95% CI)
per patient
a
Mean SD Mean SD
Antidiabetic treatment 1,027 1,028 1,119 1,163 92 (40, 224)
Anti-hypertensive treatment 554 628 1,102 720 549 (468, 630)
Cost of implementation 1,332 777 1,782 858 450 (351, 548)
Total cost of treatment 2,913 1,605 4,003 1,931 1,090 (867, 1,314)
Within-trial hospital inpatient costs 4,414 9,549 3,555 9,229 860 (2,002, 282)
Within-trial non-hospital and outpatient costs 2,116 788 2,144 799 28 (125, 70)
Projected hospital inpatient costs 13,702 36,117 13,657 38,715 46 (6,115, 6,024)
Projected non-hospital and outpatient costs 3,505 3,755 3,634 3,808 129 (425, 684)
Total cost of complications 23,738 40,415 22,989 42,561 749 (7,371, 5,873)
Total costs, undiscounted 26,651 40,577 26,993 42,713 342 (6,295, 6,978)
Total costs, 3.5% discount rate 15,786 16,378 15,895 16,025 108 (2,347, 2,563)
Total costs, 6% discount rate 11,984 11,082 12,042 10,671 58 (1,490, 1,606)
a
Negative cost differences indicate cost-savings associated with more intensive therapies. Sub-totals may not sum exactly due to rounding
872
reported in Table 4. Overall the difference in the cost of the
antihypertensive therapies between policies of tight and less
tight control was £549 (468, 630). More intensive blood
pressure control reduced the cost of complications by £749
(7,371, 5,873), and so the overall cost-effect of more inten-
sive blood pressure control was a net increase in cost of
£342 (6,295, 6,978), or £108 (2,347, 2,563) when dis-
counted to present value.
Outcomes The main measure of effectiveness in this anal-
ysis is expected QALYs gained per patient. Table 5 shows
mean quality-adjusted life expectancy from date of random-
isation, by allocation, for the within-trial period and pro-
jected over their remaining lifetime. Patients allocated to an
intensive blood glucose control policy with insulin and
sulphonylureas were estimated to live 16.62 QALYs com-
pared with 16.35 QALYs for patients on conventional ther-
apy. This was a non-significant trend of 0.27 (0.48, 1.03),
or 0.15 (0.20, 0.49) when discounted.
The estimated number of QALYs in overweight patients
allocated to an intensive blood glucose control policy with
metformin showed a non-significant increase of 0.88 (0.54,
2.29), compared with overweight patients on the conven-
tional glucose control policy (Table 5). Patients allocated to
a tight blood pressure control policy were estimated to
obtain 14.16 QALYs, compared with 13.71 amongst those
allocated to a less tight blood pressure control policy. The
overall lower number of QALYs in this randomisation com-
pared with the glucose control analyses reflects the older age
at which these hypertensive patients were randomised into
this embedded study (56.4 vs 53.3 years).
Cost-effectiveness One way of representing the combina-
tions of cost and effect differences reported above for each
intervention is to plot the changes on a cost-effectiveness
plane, which simultaneously represents the difference in
the mean costs (on the y-axis) and life expectancy (on the
x-axis) [20]. Figure 1ac shows cost-effectiveness planes
for the intensive blood glucose, metformin and tight blood
pressure control analyses, respectively. The vertical I-bars
show the 95% CI for the cost-difference (from Table 2) and
the horizontal I-bars show the 95% CI for the difference in
QALYs (from Table 5). The two I-bars cross at the point
estimates of cost and effect and the slope of the line join-
ing that point to the origin of the plane represents the
point estimate of cost per QALY. The discounted cost of
an intensive blood glucose control policy with insulin or
sulphonylureas was on average £884 more per patient and
the discounted benefits gained were 0.15 QALYs, giving a
cost to utility ratio of £6,028 per QALY gained. The dis-
counted cost of intensive blood glucose control policy with
metformin in overweight patients was on average £1,021
(4,291, 2,249) less than the conventional policy and had a
longer discounted life expectancy of 0.55 QALYs, making
this treatment strategy both cost-saving and more effective.
In these circumstances, calculation of a cost to effectiveness
ratio is not appropriate, as such a ratio would fail to dif-
ferentiate between an intervention that was cost-saving and
outcome-enhancing, and an intervention that increased costs
with poorer outcomes [21]. Finally, the discounted cost of
tight blood pressure control policy was on average £108
more per patient, and discounted life expectancy was 0.29
QALYs longer, giving a cost to utility ratio of £369 per
QALY gained.
The joint uncertainty in costs and QALYs is shown by the
elliptical contours in Fig. 1ac, which cover 95% of the
integrated joint density (assuming joint normality). In all
three cases the 95% confidence surface extends beyond a
single quadrant of the cost-effectiveness pane and in these
situations the calculation of 95% CIs for cost-effectiveness
can be problematic due to the inherent instability of ratio
statistics. An alternative presentation is given in Fig. 2,
which shows, for different values of the maximum will-
ingness to pay for a QALY, the probability that the inter-
vention under evaluation is cost-effective. These curves are
known as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and have
become an accepted way of presenting uncertainty in cost-
effectiveness information that can simultaneously summarise
Table 5 Within-trial and lifetime modelled quality-adjusted life
expectancy of conventional vs intensive blood glucose control with
insulin or sulphonylureas; conventional vs intensive blood glucose
control with metformin in overweight patients; and tight vs less tight
blood pressure control, at varying discount rates
Item Mean (SD) undiscounted
QALYs per patient
Mean difference (95% CI) in
QALYs per patient
Conventional Intensive Discount rate per year
0% 3.5% 6%
Within-trial
Intensive blood glucose control 7.62 (2.71) 7.72 (2.69) 0.10 (0.09, 0.29) 0.08 (0.07, 0.22) 0.06 (0.05, 0.17)
Metformin therapy 8.09 (2.50) 8.37 (2.33) 0.28 (0.09, 0.63) 0.22 (0.04, 0.48) 0.18 (0.02, 0.39)
Tight blood pressure control 7.63 (2.36) 7.77 (2.18) 0.12 (0.10, 0.34) 0.10 (0.08, 0.28) 0.08 (0.06, 0.24)
Total
Intensive blood glucose control 16.35 (8.36) 16.62 (8.35) 0.27 (0.48, 1.03) 0.15 (0.20, 0.49) 0.10 (0.12, 0.31)
Metformin therapy 16.44 (8.49) 17.32 (7.94) 0.88 (0.54, 2.29) 0.55 (0.10, 1.20) 0.40 (0.01, 0.80)
Tight blood pressure control 13.71 (8.00) 14.16 (7.81) 0.45 (0.70, 1.60) 0.29 (0.26, 0.85) 0.22 (0.14, 0.59)
QALY quality-adjusted life year
873
uncertainty due to sampling variation, but also uncertainty
concerning the appropriate threshold for cost-effective de-
cision-making [20]. The point at which the curves cross the
vertical axis shows the probability that treatment is cost-
saving.
With costs and effects discounted at a 3.5% rate, in-
tensive blood glucose control has a 10% chance of being
cost-saving. At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per QALY there is
a 74% chance that it is cost-effective. There is a 77% prob-
ability that metformin would prove to be cost-saving
compared with a conventional policy, and due to the po-
sition of the point estimate of cost-effectiveness in the dom-
inant quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, the chance
that metformin is cost-effective at a ratio of £20,000 per
QALY is 98%. Tight blood pressure control has a 47%
chance of being cost-saving and an 86% chance of being
cost-effective compared with less tight control.
Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analyses performed to ex-
amine whether the results in the main analysis are robust to
different assumptions are displayed in Fig. 3. The effect of
a 50% higher standard practice cost than in the baseline
estimates, after discounting, was an increase in the average
cost per QALY for intensive blood glucose control with
insulin or sulphonylurea from £6,028 to £10,051, while a
50% reduction in standard practice costs reduced the cost
per QALY to £2,251. Lowering the costs of complications
had the effect of increasing the cost per QALY, as the value
of averted events was lessened and so net cost rose, and the
same effect was found with the tight blood pressure control
policy. The sensitivity analyses of intensive blood glucose
control with metformin are not shown in Fig. 3 as this was
an intervention dominated by the comparator (lower costs
and better outcomes); neither a 50% increase in antidia-
beti c therapy costs or standard practice costs, nor a 50%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
£0 £5000 £10 000 £15 000 £20 000 £25 000 £30 000
Value of ceilin
g
ratio (lambda)
Probability cost-effective
Fig. 2 Cost-effectiveness ac-
ceptability curves: probability
that the cost per quality-adjusted
life year gained is cost-effective
as a function of the decision-
makers ceiling cost to effec-
tiveness ratio. Top curve
metformin, middle curve tight
blood pressure control, lower
curve intensive blood glucose
control
–£6000
–£5000
–£4000
–£3000
–£2000
–£1000
£0
£1000
£2000
£3000
£4000
–1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Additional QALYs
Incremental costs
–£6000
–£5000
–£4000
–£3000
–£2000
–£1000
£0
£1000
£2000
£3000
£4000
–1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Additional QALYs
Incremental costs
–£6000
–£5000
–£4000
–£3000
–£2000
–£1000
£0
£1000
£2000
£3000
£4000
–1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Additional QALYs
Incremental costs
abc
Fig. 1 Cost-effectiveness planes showing mean difference in cost
and effect and 95% CI and 95% confidence ellipses for cost-
effectiveness for a intensive vs conventional blood glucose control
with insulin or sulphonylureas, b intensive vs conventional blood
glucose control with metformin in overweight patients and c tight vs
less tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes. QALY Quality-
adjusted life year
874
reduction in com plication costs, altered the status of inten-
sive blood gl ucose control with metformin as a cost-
reducing intervention.
We also show the impact of different assumptions re-
garding continuing health effects beyond the trial and utility
weights used to estimate QALYs. In regard to health effects,
we have estimated the cost : effectiveness ratios: (1) using
only the benefits attained within the trial; and (2) assuming
that the average difference in HbA
1
c (or blood pressure)
between policies continues beyond the trial as a way of
capturing continuing treatment effects. In regard to inten-
sive blood glucose control, disregarding benefits beyond
the trial increased the average cost per QALY to £11,050,
while assuming a continuing treatment effect reduced the
average cost to effectiveness ratio to £4,209. To examine the
impact of adopting a higher utility weight for people with-
out complications when calculating QALYs, we re-ran the
simulation adopting the assumption that the mean utility for
people without complications is 1.0 (i.e. they are in full
health), rather than 0.79 as used in the main analysis. After a
discounting, the differences in conventional vs intensive
blood glucose control with insulin or sulphonylureas, con-
ventional vs intensive blood glucose control with metfor-
min and tight vs less tight blood pressure control were 0.19
(0.17, 0.55), 0.69 (0.02, 1.41) and 0.36 (0.29, 1.00),
respectively. As the figure shows for intensive blood glu-
cose control with insulin or sulphonylureas and for tight
blood pressure control, these changes did not have a major
impact on the estimated cost-effectiveness.
Discussion
Summary of main findings This paper presents the results of
a set of cost-effectiveness studies based on the primary
results from the UKPDS with model-derived extrapolation
to 100% mortality of the trial cohort. These indicate that
intensive blood glucose control with insulin or sulphony-
lureas, intensive blood glucose control with metformin and
tight blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with
type 2 diabetes each has a cost per QALY gained that is
lower than other accepted uses of healthcare resources. In
the UK, interventions appear to have a high chance of ac-
ceptance by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence if
their cost-effectiveness is more favourable than approxi-
mately £30,000 per QALY [22]. As the results are based
primarily on clinical trial information, the effectiveness and
resource use data used are less likely to be affected by the
sources of bias, confounding and uncertainty that often
impair non-randomised study designs.
These results mark an important advance on our previous
estimates of the cost-effectiveness of diabetes treatment
policies, in that t he outcome measures used here capture
the improved quality of life associated with lower rates of
complications in patients randomised to policies of more
intensive blood glucose or tighter blood pressure control as
well as the survival benefit from a reduced number of fatal
events. The estimated gains in quality-adjusted life expec-
tancy range from 0.17 QALYs for intensified blood glucose
control with insulin or sulphonylureas to 0.88 QALYs for
metformin therapy in overweight patients. The cost esti-
mates also include many changes in the unit cost of drugs in
the UK, for example the total cost of antihypertensive drugs
in the tight blood pressure control group of patients are
estimated to be £1,102 per patient, which is approximately
15% lower than those reported in a previous study due to
reductions in the cost of captopril following the expiration
of its patent in the UK [4].
A previous modelling study which reported the cost-
utility of an intensive blood glucose policy with insulin or
sulphonylureas and tighter blood pressure control [23] pro-
duced similar outcome estimates, but the cost of imple-
menting these policies appeared to be much higher in a US
healthcare setting, resulting in somewhat less favourable
cost to effectiveness ratios. For example, the incremental
cost of treatment with a policy of intensive blood glucose
control was estimated to be $12,213 (equivalent to £6,600 at
2004 exchange rates), over three times the estimated UK
£0
£2000
£4000
£6000
£8000
£10 000
£12 000
ABCDE ABCDE
Cost per QALY
Intensive blood glucose control Tight blood pressure control
A = Anti-diabetic therapy costs 50% higher/lower; B = Standard practice costs 50% higher/lower; C = Cost o
f
complications 50% lower/higher; D = Utility of 1 when free of complications; E = Treatment benefit beyond
trial: none/continuin
g
Fig. 3 Sensitivity of cost-
effectiveness of intensive blood
glucose control with insulin or
sulphonylureas and tight blood
pressure control to changes in
assumptions concerning antidi-
abetic treatment costs, standard
practice costs, costs of compli-
cations, quality of life and
treatment benefit beyond trial
875
incremental cost. These differences suggest the need to un-
dertake country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses when
costs differ markedly between healthcare systems. This may
be due to differences in the cost of diabetes therapies, or the
cost of treating complications that may influence the scope
for savings. While our sensitivity analyses also highlight
the impact of c hanges in the cost of therapy/implementa-
tion and the cost of complications, our results su ggest that
all three policies are likely to remain cost-effective under a
wide range of assumptions.
Implications of results The objective of undertaking eco-
nomic evaluation is to improve the allocation of health
resources by stimulating the adoption of cost-effective in-
terventions and curtailing those that offer poor value for
money. Our results would indicate that there is potential for
the cost of therapies to be partly offset by reductions in the
costs of treating complications of diabetes. However, these
costs and benefits may well be incurred by different parties
or funding streams, depending on the configuration of the
healthcare system. Mechanisms may therefore have to be
devised to ensure that the correct incentives are in place to
improve diabetes care. It should also be noted that any sav-
ing from reduced complications may not be realised as fi-
nancial savings, but a reduction in hospitalisations may free
up resources that may be reallocated elsewhere.
Decision-makers will be interested not only in cost-ef-
fectiveness but also in the total cost of implementing these
interventions. We have estimated previously that improved
glycaemic and blood pressure control would cost approxi-
mately £101 m per annum for the entire population of
people with type 2 diabetes in England [11]. This represents
a small proportion (<1%) of the incremental growth in UK
healthcare spending between 2001 and 2005 and should be
similarly affordable in other healthcare systems.
Limitations Although the sensitivity analyses we undertook
suggest that our conclusions should be robust over a wide
range of assumptions made, a number of limitations should
be noted. First, we included only the costs of diabetic ther-
apy during the within-trial period and, secondly, our extra-
polation beyond the trial period does not assume continuing
treatment effects in the main analysis (e.g. patients in the
blood glucose study were assumed to have the same mean
HbA
1
c from the end of the trial). Analysts are likely to be
interested in the lifetime costs and benefits of therapies
based on various assumptions about treatment costs and
benefits continuing, but this would require further simula-
tion modelling. Thirdly, we have reported the cost-utility of
three interventions which have been considered separately.
However, in clinical practice it is likely that many patients
will be treated simultaneously for hyperglycaemia and
hypertension as well as other risk factors such as dys-
lipidaemia. Joint delivery of these interventions will lower
implementation costs and therefore should further improve
the cost to effectiveness ratios r eported here.
Since the UKPDS was first designed, the standards of
normal care for people with diabetes have risen and further
intensification of treatment has occurred following pub-
lication of the UKPDS results. One consequence is that
the incremental benefits obtained from the randomised
comparisons reported here may now be more difficult to
achieve, although the incremental costs would also be re-
duced. However, epidemiological analyses of the UKPDS
have indicated linear relationships between HbA
1
c and risk
of complications and between blood pressure and risk of
complications, but further evidence is required in order to
assess both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fur-
ther intensifying treatment. Meanwhile, it should be noted
that considerable scope still exists to attain recommended
standards of diabetes care, in the UK and elsewhere [24].
Care was taken as part of the modelling exercise to prop-
agate parameter uncertainties through the model. The re-
sults of the analysis show that, while th e point estimates
of cost-effectiveness fall within the acceptable range, we
cannot be confident, at conventional error probabilities, that
the modelled interventions are cost-effective. This is due to
the non-significant differences associated with the QALY
outcomes reported in Table 5. Nevertheless, the balance of
probabilities favours greater intervention in diabetes being
cost-effective, and the non-negligible chance that these
interventions turn out not to be cost-effective if implemen-
ted must be weighed against the even greater probability
that, if these interventions are not implemented, patients
will have been denied cost-effective care. Information on
the 5-year follow-up of the UKPDS will offer the oppor-
tunity of testing the model predictions and further refining
the cost-effectiveness estimates and the precision with which
they are estimated.
Conclusion In conclusion, the analyses reported here pro-
vide further evidence that the cost-effectiveness of interven-
tions to reduce the burden of diabetes-related complications
compares favourably with that of other accepted uses of
healthcare resources. The results should be of interest and
use to other economists and health service researchers, and
in particular should be considered by decision-makers when
considering the allocation of resources to diabetes care. We
believe the results illustrate a convincing economic ratio-
nale for improving standards of care for patients with type 2
diabetes.
Conflict of interest declaration. The authors are employed
by the University of Oxford. This paper makes use of a
simulation model that we have called the UKPDS Out-
comes Model. All of the information necessary to reproduce
the UKPDS Outcomes Model is in the public domain, but it
is conceivable that a future user with a commercial interest
in the UKPDS Outcomes Model might prefer to use the
software already created by University programmers. De-
pending on the nature of the proposed use of the UKPDS
Outcomes Model, the University of Oxford might charge a
fee in this case.
876
Acknowledgements The cooperation of the patients and many NHS
and non-NHS staff at the centres is much appreciated. The major
grants for this study were from the UK Medical Research Council;
British Diabetic Association; the UK Department of Health; the
National Eye Institute and the National Institute of Digestive, Dia-
betes and Kidney Disease in the National Institutes of Health, USA;
the British Heart Foundation; Novo-Nordisk; Bayer; Bristol Myers
Squibb; Hoechst; Lilly; Lipha; and Farmitalia Carlo Erba. Other
funding companies and agencies, the supervising committees, and all
participating staff are listed in an earlier paper [1]. P. M. Clarke is
partly supported by an NHMRC grant 300565. A. Briggs is supported
by an NHS Public Health Career Scientist award. R. Stevens was
supported by Health Foundation. We are grateful to I. Stratton and A.
Farmer for comments on the manuscript.
References
1. UKPDS Group (1998) Intensive blood-glucose control with
sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treat-
ment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes
(UKPDS 33). Lancet 352:837853
2. Gray A, Raikou M, McGuire A et al (2000) Cost effectiveness
of an intensive blood glucose control policy in patients with
type 2 diabetes: economic analysis alongside randomised con-
trolled trial (UKPDS 41). BMJ 320:13731378
3. UKPDS Group (1998) Tight blood pressure control and risk of
macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 dia-
betes (UKPDS 38). BMJ 317:703713
4. UKPDS Group (1998) Cost effectiveness analysis of improved
blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2
diabetes (UKPDS 40). BMJ 317:720726
5. UKPDS Group (1998) Effect of intensive blood-glucose control
with metformin on complications in overweight patients with
type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 352:854865
6. Clarke P, Gray A, Adler A et al (2001) Cost-effectiveness
analysis of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin in
overweight patients with type II diabetes (UKPDS No. 51).
Diabetologia 44:298304
7. Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for
economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 5:130
8. NICE (2004) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London
9. UKPDS Group (1991) UK Prospective diabetes study VIII:
study design, progress and performance. Diabetologia 34:877
890
10. Netten A, Curtis L (2003) Unit costs of health and social care
2003. Personal Social Services Research Unit, Canterbury,
Kent (University of Kent)
11. Gray A, Clarke P, Farmer A, Holman R (2002) Implementing
intensive control of blood glucose concentration and blood
pressure in type 2 diabetes in England: cost analysis (UKPDS
63). BMJ 325:860
12. Clarke P, Gray A, Legood R, Briggs A, Holman R (2003) The
impact of diabetes-related complications on healthcare costs:
results from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study
(UKPDS 65). Diabetes Med 20:442450
13. HM Treasury (2003) The green book: appraisal and evaluation
in central government: treasury guidance. The Stationery Office,
London
14. UKPDS Group (1999) Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients
is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to
improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37).
Diabetes Care 22:11251136
15. DCCT (1996) Lifetime benefits and costs of intensive therapy
as practiced in the diabetes control and complications trial. The
diabetes control and complications trial research group. JAMA
276:14091415
16. Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R (2002) Estimating utility values
for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D
(UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making 22:340349
17. Clarke P, Gray A, Briggs A et al (2004) A model to estimate the
lifetime health outcomes of patients with Type 2 diabetes: the
United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) out-
comes model (UKPDS 68). Diabetologia 47:17471759
18. Brown JB, Russell A, Chan W, Pedula K, Aickin M (2000) The
global diabetes model: user friendly version 3.0. Diabetes Res
Clin Pract 50:S15S46
19. Hougaard P (2000) Analysis of multivariate survival data
(statistics for biology and health). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
New York
20. Van Hout B, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF (1994) Costs,
effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ
3:309319
21. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J (1997) The negative side of cost-
effectiveness analysis. JAMA 277:19311932
22. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ (2004) National Institute for Clinical
Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 329:224
227
23. CDC Group (2002) Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic
control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol
level reduction for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 287:25422551
24. Audit Commission (2000) Testing times: a review of diabetes
services in England and Wales. Audit Commission, London
877
... One of the most widely used diabetes simulation models is the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (UKPDS-OM) [3]. UKPDS-OM is a multiapplication model that has been used in a wide variety of applications, including cost-effectiveness analyses [4][5][6] and prediction of life expectancy [7,8], as well as informing diabetes guidelines of health technology assessment organisations, such as NICE [9]. In a recent Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge, 10 of 12 health economic diabetes simulation models used UKPDS-OM risk equations [10]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Most type 2 diabetes simulation models utilise equations mapping out lifetime trajectories of risk factors [e.g. glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)]. Existing equations, using historic data or assuming constant risk factors, frequently underestimate or overestimate complication rates. Updated risk factor time path equations are needed for simulation models to more accurately predict complication rates. (1) Update United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (UKPDS-OM2) risk factor time path equations; (2) compare quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using original and updated equations; and (3) compare QALY gains for reference case simulations using different risk factor equations. Using pooled contemporary data from two randomised trials EXSCEL and TECOS (n = 28,608), we estimated: dynamic panel models of seven continuous risk factors (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, HbA1c, haemoglobin, heart rate, blood pressure and body mass index); two-step models of estimated glomerular filtration rate; and survival analyses of peripheral arterial disease, atrial fibrillation and albuminuria. UKPDS-OM2-derived lifetime QALYs were extrapolated over 70 years using historical and the new risk factor equations. All new risk factor equation predictions were within 95% confidence intervals of observed values, displaying good agreement between observed and estimated values. Historical risk factor time path equations predicted trial participants would accrue 9.84 QALYs, increasing to 10.98 QALYs using contemporary equations. Incorporating updated risk factor time path equations into diabetes simulation models could give more accurate predictions of long-term health, costs, QALYs and cost-effectiveness estimates, as well as a more precise understanding of the impact of diabetes on patients’ health, expenditure and quality of life. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01144338 and NCT00790205
... [22][23][24][25][26] We support the major role GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have in helping to reduce the risk of the complications of diabetes, but would emphasise the importance of avoiding hyperglycaemia however this outcome is achieved. Notably, all the therapies used in the UKPDS are off patent, have been shown previously to be cost-effective or indeed cost-saving, 27 are widely available globally at low cost, and are on the WHO List of Essential Medicines. The glycaemic legacy effect is likely to strengthen the economic case for the use of these therapies in low-income settings, as this study has demonstrated additional enduring health benefits long beyond the trial period. ...
... 6 The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) also demonstrated that intensive glycemic control is costeffective. 7 It is well-documented that diabetes self-management education (DSME) improves the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, 8,9 behaviors, emotions about healthy coping, and quality of life of persons with diabetes. 10,11 Therefore, DSME should be introduced and reinforced in diabetes care planning. ...
... This pattern may be driven by researchers' love for their craft, which motivates them to prioritize the full use of available computational resources rather than addressing the policy issue. This translates into, for instance, systematically resorting to Markov chain models despite the availability of representations that are less computationally demanding (Clarke et al. 2005). Additionally, cross-comparing different modelling typologies is a practice that is scarcely explored in the field. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Climate change and COVID-19 have brought mathematical models into the forefront of politics and decision-making, where they are now being used to justify momentous and often controversial decisions. Such models are technically very complex, and sources of political authority. Yet disagreement among experts fuels a growing uneasiness about the quality and significance of the numbers that models produce. This multidisciplinary volume takes a critical look at the intersections of the technical and the political aspects of models. Our goal is to help unravel the meanings and implications of models in the real world, for readers that include decision makers, policy analysts, journalists, scholars … and even modellers.
... The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model version 2.1 (UKPDS OM2) is a validated computerized simulation tool for evaluating the long-term effects of interventions and complications in patients with T2DM, as well as economic outcomes (DTU, 2019). It has been applied globally (Clarke et al., 2005;Cunningham et al., 2022), including the Chinese T2DM population (Hu et al., 2021;Hu et al., 2022a). The model is based on data from 5,102 participants in the 20-year trial, and 4,031 survivors with a 10-year post-trial monitoring (PTM) followup period, which is used to model the risk factor progression equation (Hayes et al., 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: Oral semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that improves glycated hemoglobin levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily oral semaglutide in comparison to placebo and injectable GLP-1 RAs in Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on basal insulin. Methods: The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (UKPDS OM2.1) was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Baseline characteristics of the simulation cohort were obtained from the PIONEER 8 trial. Utility and safety inputs were derived from a network meta-analysis of 12 trials. Direct medical costs were retrieved from published literature and discounted at an annual rate of 5%. We used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 36,528.3perqualityadjustedlifeyear(QALY)gained.Scenarioanalysis,andonewayandprobabilisticsensitivityanalysiswereperformed.Results:Theeffectivenessoforalsemaglutidewas10.39QALYswithatotalcostof36,528.3 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Scenario analysis, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. Results: The effectiveness of oral semaglutide was 10.39 QALYs with a total cost of 30,223.10, while placebo provided 10.13 QALYs at a lower total cost of 20,039.19.OralsemaglutidewasnotcosteffectiveatanICERof20,039.19. Oral semaglutide was not cost-effective at an ICER of 39,853.22 and 88,776.61perQALYcomparedtoplaceboandexenatideattheWTP.However,atanannualpriceof88,776.61 per QALY compared to placebo and exenatide at the WTP. However, at an annual price of 1,871.9, it was cost-effective compared with dulaglutide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide. The model was most sensitive to the discount rate and annual cost of oral semaglutide. The price of oral semaglutide needed to be reduced to 1,711.03peryeartobecosteffectivecomparedtoplaceboandotherinjectableGLP1RAsexceptforexenatideandsemaglutideinjection.Conclusion:Wefoundthatoncedailyoralsemaglutide,atacomparablepriceofsemaglutideinjection,provestobeacosteffectiveaddontherapytoinsulinforChinesepatientswithT2DM,especiallywhencomparedtosubcutaneousGLP1RAsotherthaninjectablesemaglutideandexenatide.However,toachievecosteffectivenessincomparisontoplacebo,furthercostreductionoforalsemaglutideisnecessary.Theestimatedannualcostof1,711.03 per year to be cost-effective compared to placebo and other injectable GLP-1 RAs except for exenatide and semaglutide injection. Conclusion: We found that once-daily oral semaglutide, at a comparable price of semaglutide injection, proves to be a cost-effective add-on therapy to insulin for Chinese patients with T2DM, especially when compared to subcutaneous GLP-1 RAs other than injectable semaglutide and exenatide. However, to achieve cost-effectiveness in comparison to placebo, further cost reduction of oral semaglutide is necessary. The estimated annual cost of 1,711.03 for oral semaglutide demonstrates a more cost-effective option than placebo, highlighting its potential value in the management of T2DM.
... The effects of improved ABC control on QALYs were also estimated using observed trial data. In the original UKPDS trial, a mean decrease in HbA 1c of 0.9% (9.8 mmol/mol) (from 7.9% [62.8 mmol/mol] to 7% [53.0 mmol/mol]) resulted in 0.08 QALYs gained over a time horizon of 10 years, and a mean decrease in SBP of 10 mmHg resulted in 0.1 QALYs gained [21,41]. In comparison, in our study, 11 mmol/mol (1.0%) decrease in HbA 1c sustained over 10 years resulted in 0.02 QALYs gained, and a sustained decrease of SBP by 10 mmHg (from 154 to 144 mmHg) resulted in 0.02 QALYs gained (Table 2 and ESM Table 14). ...
Article
Full-text available
Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to estimate the long-term health and economic consequences of improved risk factor control in German adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods We used the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 to project the patient-level health outcomes and healthcare costs of people with type 2 diabetes in Germany over 5, 10 and 30 years. We parameterised the model using the best available data on population characteristics, healthcare costs and health-related quality of life from German studies. The modelled scenarios were: (1) a permanent reduction of HbA1c by 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%), of systolic BP (SBP) by 10 mmHg, or of LDL-cholesterol by 0.26 mmol/l in all patients, and (2) achievement of guideline care recommendations for HbA1c (≤53 mmol/mol [7%]), SBP (≤140 mmHg) or LDL-cholesterol (≤2.6 mmol/l) in patients who do not meet the recommendations. We calculated nationwide estimates using age- and sex-specific quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and cost estimates, type 2 diabetes prevalence and population size. Results Over 10 years, a permanent reduction of HbA1c by 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%), SBP by 10 mmHg or LDL-cholesterol by 0.26 mmol/l led to per-person savings in healthcare expenditures of €121, €238 and €34, and 0.01, 0.02 and 0.015 QALYs gained, respectively. Achieving guideline care recommendations for HbA1c, SBP or LDL-cholesterol could reduce healthcare expenditure by €451, €507 and €327 and gained 0.03, 0.05 and 0.06 additional QALYs in individuals who did not meet the recommendations. Nationally, achieving guideline care recommendations for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-cholesterol could reduce healthcare costs by over €1.9 billion. Conclusions/interpretation Sustained improvements in HbA1c, SBP and LDL-cholesterol control among diabetes patients in Germany can lead to substantial health benefits and reduce healthcare expenditures. Graphical Abstract
Article
Objective: While there are some recommendations about early insulin therapy in newly diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients, there is not sufficient evidence on this strategy's cost-effectiveness. This study compared early insulin therapy versus oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) for managing T2DMusing a cost-effectiveness analysis approach in Iran. Methods: In this economic evaluation, a decision analytic model was designed. The target population was newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients, and the study was carried out from the perspective of Iran's healthcare system with a one-year time horizon. Basal insulin, Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) were compared in this evaluation. The main outcome for assessing the effectiveness of each intervention was the reduction in the occurrence of diabetes complications. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. Results: The DPP-4 inhibitors strategy was the dominant strategy with the highest effectiveness and the lowest cost. Early insulin therapy was dominated (ICER: $-53,703.18), meaning that it was not cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses consistently affirmed the robustness of the base case findings. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated probabilities of 77%, 22%, and 1% for DPP-4 inhibitors, TZDs strategies, and early insulin therapy, respectively, in terms of being cost-effective. Conclusion: In terms of cost-effectiveness, early insulin therapy was not cost-effective compared to OADs for managing newly diagnosed T2DM patients. Future studies in this regard, utilizing more comprehensive evidence, can yield more accurate results.
Article
Full-text available
Aim and objectives: The aim of this study was to determine cost of illness and cost of utility in the study population and making recommendations to decrease the economic burden of the treatment by following the life style modifications. Methodology: It is a cross sectional pharmacoepidemiological study. Totally 132 diabetic patients both in-patients and out patients of medical and surgical departments in a secondary level referral hospital were included in this study which was conducted for a period of 6 months. All patients with diabetes type-II, continuing anti diabetic drugs (Metformin, Glibenclamide and Insulin,) for their diabetes management are included and patients who are diagnosed as Diabetic type-I and pregnancy and pediatric patients were excluded. Data was analyzed by Carlson comorbidities Index. Results: A total of 132 diabetic patients were included, in which male and famales were nearly equal in number. Based upon the comorbid conditions, it was found that the most of the subjects (69%) were suffering with diabetes along with hypertension and 9.9% are having comorbidity of hypertension & acute renal failure along with DM and treatment costs more economic burden to the patients. The average utility of drugs is more for the combination of Metformin+Glibenclamide+Insulin than metformin+glibenclamide. Conclusion: Finally we concluded that study place is a rural area and most of people are with poor knowledge and having lack of awareness on both disease and treatment. By applying Charlson Co morbidities index we found the patient’s economic status by which we found that many of the diabetic patients facing economic burden, especially daily wager are feeling much difficulty to face even therapy cost also. In co morbidities side, we noticed 55% of the study population are having diabetes with hypertension. Although all the patients were provided with education regarding their disease and drugs for improving their quality of life, but it has an influence on very few people.
Article
Background: Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes and a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. Research has established the importance of blood glucose control to prevent development and progression of the ocular complications of diabetes. Concurrent blood pressure control has been advocated for this purpose, but individual studies have reported varying conclusions regarding the effects of this intervention. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence regarding the effect of interventions to control blood pressure levels among diabetics on incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy, preservation of visual acuity, adverse events, quality of life, and costs. Search methods: We searched several electronic databases, including CENTRAL, and trial registries. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 September 2021. We also reviewed the reference lists of review articles and trial reports selected for inclusion. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which either type 1 or type 2 diabetic participants, with or without hypertension, were assigned randomly to more intense versus less intense blood pressure control; to blood pressure control versus usual care or no intervention on blood pressure (placebo); or to one class of antihypertensive medication versus another or placebo. Data collection and analysis: Pairs of review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of records identified by the electronic and manual searches and the full-text reports of any records identified as potentially relevant. The included trials were independently assessed for risk of bias with respect to outcomes reported in this review. Main results: We included 29 RCTs conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East that had enrolled a total of 4620 type 1 and 22,565 type 2 diabetic participants (sample sizes from 16 to 4477 participants). In all 7 RCTs for normotensive type 1 diabetic participants, 8 of 12 RCTs with normotensive type 2 diabetic participants, and 5 of 10 RCTs with hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants, one group was assigned to one or more antihypertensive agents and the control group to placebo. In the remaining 4 RCTs for normotensive participants with type 2 diabetes and 5 RCTs for hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants, methods of intense blood pressure control were compared to usual care. Eight trials were sponsored entirely and 10 trials partially by pharmaceutical companies; nine studies received support from other sources; and two studies did not report funding source. Study designs, populations, interventions, lengths of follow-up (range less than one year to nine years), and blood pressure targets varied among the included trials. For primary review outcomes after five years of treatment and follow-up, one of the seven trials for type 1 diabetics reported incidence of retinopathy and one trial reported progression of retinopathy; one trial reported a combined outcome of incidence and progression (as defined by study authors). Among normotensive type 2 diabetics, four of 12 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and two trials reported progression of retinopathy; two trials reported combined incidence and progression. Among hypertensive type 2 diabetics, six of the 10 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and two trials reported progression of retinopathy; five of the 10 trials reported combined incidence and progression. The evidence supports an overall benefit of more intensive blood pressure intervention for five-year incidence of diabetic retinopathy (11 studies; 4940 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.92; I2 = 15%; moderate certainty evidence) and the combined outcome of incidence and progression (8 studies; 6212 participants; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; I2 = 42%; low certainty evidence). The available evidence did not support a benefit regarding five-year progression of diabetic retinopathy (5 studies; 5144 participants; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; I2 = 57%; moderate certainty evidence), incidence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, clinically significant macular edema, or vitreous hemorrhage (9 studies; 8237 participants; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.04; I2 = 31%; low certainty evidence), or loss of 3 or more lines on a visual acuity chart with a logMAR scale (2 studies; 2326 participants; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.08; I2 = 90%; very low certainty evidence). Hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants realized more benefit from intense blood pressure control for three of the four outcomes concerning incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy. The adverse event reported most often (13 of 29 trials) was death, yielding an estimated RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; 13 studies; 13,979 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Hypotension was reported in two trials, with an RR of 2.04 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.55; 2 studies; 3323 participants; I2 = 37%; low certainty evidence), indicating an excess of hypotensive events among participants assigned to more intervention on blood pressure. Authors' conclusions: Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for several chronic conditions for which lowering blood pressure has proven to be beneficial. The available evidence supports a modest beneficial effect of intervention to reduce blood pressure with respect to preventing diabetic retinopathy for up to five years, particularly for hypertensive type 2 diabetics. However, there was a paucity of evidence to support such intervention to slow progression of diabetic retinopathy or to affect other outcomes considered in this review among normotensive diabetics. This weakens any conclusion regarding an overall benefit of intervening on blood pressure in diabetic patients without hypertension for the sole purpose of preventing diabetic retinopathy or avoiding the need for treatment for advanced stages of diabetic retinopathy.
Article
Full-text available
Background Improved blood-glucose control decreases the progression of diabetic microvascular disease, but the effect on macrovascular complications is unknown. There is concern that sulphonylureas may increase cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and that high insulin concentrations may enhance atheroma formation. We compared the effects of intensive blood-glucose control with either sulphonylurea or insulin and conventional treatment on the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomised controlled trial. Methods 3867 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes, median age 54 years (IQR 48-60 years), who after 3 months' diet treatment had a mean of two fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of 6.1-15.0 mmol/L were randomly assigned intensive policy with a sulphonylurea (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or. glipizide) or with insulin, or conventional policy with diet. The aim in the intensive group was FPG less than 6 mmol/L. in the conventional group, the aim was the best achievable FPG with diet atone; drugs were added only if there were hyperglycaemic symptoms or FPG greater than 15 mmol/L. Three aggregate endpoints were used to assess differences between conventional and intensive treatment: any diabetes-related endpoint (sudden death, death from hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, stroke, renal failure, amputation [of at least one digit], vitreous haemorrhage, retinopathy requiring photocoagulation, blindness in one eye,or cataract extraction); diabetes-related death (death from myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, and sudden death); all-cause mortality. Single clinical endpoints and surrogate subclinical endpoints were also assessed. All analyses were by intention to treat and frequency of hypoglycaemia was also analysed by actual therapy. Findings Over 10 years, haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) was 7.0% (6.2-8.2) in the intensive group compared with 7.9% (6.9-8.8) in the conventional group-an 11% reduction. There was no difference in HbA(1c) among agents in the intensive group. Compared with the conventional group, the risk in the intensive group was 12% lower (95% CI 1-21, p=0.029) for any diabetes-related endpoint; 10% lower (-11 to 27, p=0.34) for any diabetes-related death; and 6% lower (-10 to 20, p=0.44) for all-cause mortality. Most of the risk reduction in the any diabetes-related aggregate endpoint was due to a 25% risk reduction (7-40, p=0.0099) in microvascular endpoints, including the need for retinal photocoagulation. There was no difference for any of the three aggregate endpoints the three intensive agents (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin). Patients in the intensive group had more hypoglycaemic episodes than those in the conventional group on both types of analysis (both p<0.0001). The rates of major hypoglycaemic episodes per year were 0.7% with conventional treatment, 1.0% with chlorpropamide, 1.4% with glibenclamide, and 1.8% with insulin. Weight gain was significantly higher in the intensive group (mean 2.9 kg) than in the conventional group (p<0.001), and patients assigned insulin had a greater gain in weight (4.0 kg) than those assigned chlorpropamide (2.6 kg) or glibenclamide (1.7 kg). Interpretation Intensive blood-glucose control by either sulphonylureas or insulin substantially decreases the risk of microvascular complications, but not macrovascular disease, in patients with type 2 diabetes. None of the individual drugs had an adverse effect on cardiovascular outcomes. All intensive treatment increased the risk of hypoglycaemia.
Article
The Institute is reviewing the `Guide to the methods of technology appraisal', which underpins the technology appraisal programme. The document provides an overview of the principles and methods used by the Institute in assessing health technologies. It is a guide for all organisations considering submitting evidence to the technology appraisal programme and describes all aspects of appraisal methodology. It should be used in conjunction with the `Guide to the technology apprai
Article
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) offers health professionals in England and Wales advice on providing NHS patients with the highest attainable standards of care. NICE gives guidance on individual health technologies, the management of specific conditions, and the safety and efficacy of interventional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Guidance is based on the best available evidence. The evidence may not, however, be very good and is rarely complete. Those responsible for formulating the NICE’s advice therefore have to make judgments both about what is good and bad in the available science (scientific value judgments) and about what is good for society (social value judgments). In this article we focus on the scientific and social judgments forming the crux of the institute’s assessment of cost effectiveness. Scientific value judgments and those relating to clinical effectiveness are considered elsewhere.
Article
Objectives: To estimate the economic efficiency of tight blood pressure control, with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or beta blockers, compared with less tight control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Design: Cost effectiveness analysis incorporating within trial analysis and estimation of impact on life expectancy through use of the within trial hazards of reaching a defined clinical end point Use of resources driven by trial protocol and use of resources in standard clinical practice were both considered. Setting: 20 hospital based clinics in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Subjects: 1148 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes from UK prospective diabetes study randomised to tight control of blood pressure (n = 758) or less tight control (n = 390). Main outcome measure: Cost effectiveness ratios based on (a) use of healthcare resources associated with tight control and less tight control and treatment of complications and (b) within trial time free from diabetes related end points, and life years gained. Results: Based an use of resources driven by trial protocol, the incremental cost effectiveness of tight control compared with less tight control was cost saving. Based on use of resources in standard clinical practice, incremental cost per extra year free from end points amounted to pound 1049 (costs and effects discounted at 6'% per year) and pound 434 (costs discounted at 6%, per year and effects not discounted). The incremental cost per life year gained was pound 720 (costs and effects discounted at 6% per year) and pound 291 (costs discounted at 6% per year and effects not discounted). Conclusions: Tight control of blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes substantially reduced the cost of complications, increased the interval without complications and survival, and had a cost effectiveness ratio that compares favourably with many accepted healthcare programmes.
Article
Objective: To determine in patients with type 2 diabetes the effects on quality of life (QOL) of therapies for improving blood glucose control and for improving blood pressure (BP) control, diabetic complications, and hypoglycemic episodes. Research design and methods: We performed two cross-sectional studies of patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials of 1) an intensive blood glucose control policy compared with a conventional blood glucose control policy, and 2) a tight BP control policy compared with a less tight BP control policy. Also undertaken was a longitudinal study of patients in a randomized controlled trial of an intensive blood glucose control policy compared with a conventional blood glucose control policy. Subjects' QOL was assessed before or at the time of randomization and from 6 months to 6 years after randomization. Two cross-sectional samples of type 2 diabetic patients were randomized to therapies for blood glucose control: 1) 2,431 patients, mean age 60, duration from randomization 8.0 years, completed a "specific" questionnaire covering four aspects of QOL, and 2) 3,104 patients, mean age 62, duration from randomization 11 years, completed a "generic" QOL measure. Of these samples, 628 and 747 patients, respectively, were also randomized to therapies for BP control. A sample of 122 non-diabetic control subjects, average age 62, were also given the specific questionnaire. A longitudinal sample of 374 type 2 diabetic patients randomized to either intensive or conventional blood glucose policies, mean age at randomization 52, were given the specific questionnaire. Sample-sizes at 6 months and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 years after randomization were 322, 307, 280, 253, 225, 163, and 184, respectively. The specific questionnaire assessed specific domains of QOL, including mood disturbance (Profile of Mood State), cognitive mistakes (Cognitive Failures Questionnaire), symptoms, and work satisfaction; the generic questionnaire (EQ5D) assessed general health. Both questionnaires were self-administered. Results: The cross-sectional studies showed that allocated therapies were neutral in effect, with neither improvement nor deterioration in QOL scores for mood, cognitive mistakes, symptoms, work satisfaction, or general health. The longitudinal study also showed no difference in QOL scores for the specific domains assessed, other than showing marginally more symptoms in patients allocated to conventional than to intensive policy. In the cross-sectional studies, patients who had had a macrovascular complication in the last year had worse general health, as measured by the generic questionnaire, than those without complications, with scale scores median 60 and 78 respectively (P = 0.0006) and tariff scores median 0.73 and 0.83 respectively (P = 0.0012); more problems with mobility, 64 and 36%, respectively (P < 0.0001); and more problems with usual activities, 48 and 28% respectively (P = 0.0023). As measured by the specific questionnaire, they also showed reduced vigor (P = 0.0077). Patients who had had a microvascular complication in the last year reported more tension (P = 0.0082) and total mood disturbance (P = 0.0054), as measured by the specific questionnaire, than patients without complications. Patients treated with insulin who had had two or more hypoglycemic episodes during the previous year reported more tension (P = 0.0023), more overall mood disturbance (P = 0.0009), and less work satisfaction (P = 0.0042), as measured by the specific questionnaire, than those with no hypoglycemic attacks, after adjusting for age, duration from randomization, systolic BP, HbA1c, and sex in a multivariate polychotomous regression. Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes, complications of the disease affected QOL, whereas therapeutic policies shown to reduce the risk of complications had no effect on QOL. It cannot be discerned whether frequent hypoglycemic episodes affect QOL, or whether patients with certain p
Article
Context Several treatment interventions can reduce complications of type 2 diabetes, but their relative cost-effectiveness is not known. Objective To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control (relative to conventional control), intensified hypertension control, and reduction in serum cholesterol level for patients with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Patients Cost-effectiveness analysis of a hypothetical cohort of individuals living in the United States, aged 25 years or older, who were newly diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes. The results of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and other studies were used to create a model of disease progression and treatment patterns. Costs were based on those used in community practices in the United States. Interventions Insulin or sulfonylurea therapy for intensive glycemic control; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or β-blocker for intensified hypertension control; and pravastatin for reduction of serum cholesterol level. Main Outcome Measures Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Costs (in 1997 US dollars) and QALYs were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for intensive glycemic control is 41384perQALY;thisratioincreasedwithageatdiagnosisfrom41 384 per QALY; this ratio increased with age at diagnosis from 9614 per QALY for patients aged 25 to 34 years to 2.1millionforpatientsaged85to94years.Forintensifiedhypertensioncontrolthecosteffectivenessratiois2.1 million for patients aged 85 to 94 years. For intensified hypertension control the cost-effectiveness ratio is −1959 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness ratio for reduction in serum cholesterol level is $51 889 per QALY; this ratio varied by age at diagnosis and is lowest for patients diagnosed between the ages of 45 and 84 years. Conclusions Intensified hypertension control reduces costs and improves health outcomes relative to moderate hypertension control. Intensive glycemic control and reduction in serum cholesterol level increase costs and improve health outcomes. The cost-effectiveness ratios for these 2 interventions are comparable with those of several other frequently adopted health care interventions. Chronic disease modeling usually requires extrapolating the results of an intervention on intermediate outcomes, which occur within the duration of a randomized controlled trial, to long-term or end-stage health outcomes that are most likely to occur after the trial has ended. Often, the intervention has a significant effect on intermediate outcomes, but the trial ends before significant effects on long-term outcomes can be observed. The UKPDS was an unusually long randomized controlled trial, with a median follow-up of 10 years, and intensive glycemic control that produced a 12% reduction (P = .03) in the aggregate end point of any diabetes-related event.³⁰ However, intensive glycemic control did not produce significant reductions in such long-term outcomes as all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, renal failure, and amputation. There were few cases of renal failure, blindness, or amputation under conventional glycemic control, virtually precluding a significant intervention effect on these outcomes. Intensive glycemic control did significantly reduce progression to microalbuminuria, photocoagulation, and neuropathy. When we incorporated into our model the effects of intensive glycemic control on these intermediate disease stages, the model indicated that such control would lead to long-term reductions in renal failure, blindness, and amputation.