Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of intensified versus conventional multifactorial intervention in type 2 diabetes: Results and projections from the steno-2 study

  • Peter Gæde*
  • , William J. Valentine
  • , Andrew J. Palmer
  • , Daniel M.D. Tucker
  • , Morten Lammert
  • , Hans Henrik Parving
  • , Oluf Pedersen
  • *Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE - To assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus conventional therapy for 8 years as applied in the Steno-2 study in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A Markov model was developed to incorporate event and risk data from Steno-2 and account Danish-specific costs to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and lifetime direct medical costs expressed in year 2005 Euros. Clinical and cost outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes and discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS - Intensive treatment was associated with increased life expectancy, QALE, and lifetime costs compared with conventional treatment. Mean ± SD undiscounted life expectancy was 18.1 ± 7.9 years with intensive treatment and 16.2 ± 7.3 years with conventional treatment (difference 1.9years). Discounted life expectancy was 13.4 ± 4.8 years with intensive treatment and 12.4 ± 4.5 years with conventional treatment. Lifetime costs (discounted) for intensive and conventional treatment were €45,521 ± 19,697 and €41,319 ± 27,500, respectively (difference €4,202). Increased costs with intensive treatment were due to increased pharmacy and consultation costs. Discounted QALE was 1.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) higher for intensive (10.2 ± 3.6 QALYs) versus conventional (8.6 ± 2.7 QALYs) treatment, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2,538 per QALY gained. This is considered a conservative estimate because accounting prescription of generic drugs and capturing indirect costs would further favor intensified therapy. CONCLUSIONS - From a health care payer perspective in Denmark, intensive therapy was more cost-effective than conventional treatment. Assuming that patients in both arms were treated in a primary care setting, intensive therapy became dominant (cost- and lifesaving).

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1510-1515
    Number of pages6
    JournalDiabetes Care
    Volume31
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2008

    Fingerprint

    Explore the research areas of 'Cost-effectiveness of intensified versus conventional multifactorial intervention in type 2 diabetes: Results and projections from the steno-2 study'.

    Cite this