Premium
Cost‐effectiveness of intensive multifactorial treatment compared with routine care for individuals with screen‐detected Type 2 diabetes: analysis of the ADDITION ‐ UK cluster‐randomized controlled trial
Author(s) -
Tao L.,
Wilson E. C. F.,
Wareham N. J.,
Sandbæk A.,
Rutten G. E. H. M.,
Lauritzen T.,
Khunti K.,
Davies M. J.,
BorchJohnsen K.,
Griffin S. J.,
Simmons R. K.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
diabetic medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.474
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1464-5491
pISSN - 0742-3071
DOI - 10.1111/dme.12711
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , cost effectiveness , quality adjusted life year , type 2 diabetes , cluster randomised controlled trial , cost–benefit analysis , intensive care unit , diabetes mellitus , emergency medicine , pediatrics , intensive care medicine , endocrinology , ecology , risk analysis (engineering) , biology
Aims To examine the short‐ and long‐term cost‐effectiveness of intensive multifactorial treatment compared with routine care among people with screen‐detected Type 2 diabetes. Methods Cost–utility analysis in ADDITION ‐ UK , a cluster‐randomized controlled trial of early intensive treatment in people with screen‐detected diabetes in 69 UK general practices. Unit treatment costs and utility decrement data were taken from published literature. Accumulated costs and quality‐adjusted life years ( QALY s) were calculated using ADDITION ‐ UK data from 1 to 5 years (short‐term analysis, n = 1024); trial data were extrapolated to 30 years using the UKPDS outcomes model (version 1.3) (long‐term analysis; n = 999). All costs were transformed to the UK 2009/10 price level. Results Adjusted incremental costs to the NHS were £285, £935, £1190 and £1745 over a 1‐, 5‐, 10‐ and 30‐year time horizon, respectively (discounted at 3.5%). Adjusted incremental QALY s were 0.0000, – 0.0040, 0.0140 and 0.0465 over the same time horizons. Point estimate incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios ( ICER s) suggested that the intervention was not cost‐effective although the ratio improved over time: the ICER over 10 years was £82 250, falling to £37 500 over 30 years. The ICER fell below £30 000 only when the intervention cost was below £631 per patient: we estimated the cost at £981. Conclusion Given conventional thresholds of cost‐effectiveness, the intensive treatment delivered in ADDITION was not cost‐effective compared with routine care for individuals with screen‐detected diabetes in the UK . The intervention may be cost‐effective if it can be delivered at reduced cost.