Cargando…

Cost-Effectiveness of the Diabetes Care Protocol, a Multifaceted Computerized Decision Support Diabetes Management Intervention That Reduces Cardiovascular Risk

OBJECTIVE: The Diabetes Care Protocol (DCP), a multifaceted computerized decision support diabetes management intervention, reduces cardiovascular risk of type 2 diabetic patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of DCP from a Dutch health care perspective. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cleveringa, Frits G.W., Welsing, Paco M.J., van den Donk, Maureen, Gorter, Kees J., Niessen, Louis W., Rutten, Guy E.H.M., Redekop, William K.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19933991
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc09-1232
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: The Diabetes Care Protocol (DCP), a multifaceted computerized decision support diabetes management intervention, reduces cardiovascular risk of type 2 diabetic patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of DCP from a Dutch health care perspective. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cluster randomized trial provided data of DCP versus usual care. The 1-year follow-up patient data were extrapolated using a modified Dutch microsimulation diabetes model, computing individual lifetime health-related costs, and health effects. Incremental costs and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were estimated using multivariate generalized estimating equations to correct for practice-level clustering and confounding. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were created. Stroke costs were calculated separately. Subgroup analyses examined patients with and without cardiovascular disease (CVD+ or CVD− patients, respectively). RESULTS: Excluding stroke, DCP patients lived longer (0.14 life-years, P = NS), experienced more QALYs (0.037, P = NS), and incurred higher total costs (€1,415, P = NS), resulting in an ICER of €38,243 per QALY gained. The likelihood of cost-effectiveness given a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained is 30%. DCP had a more favorable effect on CVD+ patients (ICER = €14,814) than for CVD− patients (ICER = €121,285). Coronary heart disease costs were reduced (€−587, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DCP reduces cardiovascular risk, resulting in only a slight improvement in QALYs, lower CVD costs, but higher total costs, with a high cost-effectiveness ratio. Cost-effective care can be achieved by focusing on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetic patients with a history of CVD.