Cost-effectiveness of the Diabetes Care Protocol, a multifaceted computerized decision support diabetes management intervention that reduces cardiovascular risk.

  1. Frits G.W. Cleveringa, MD (f.g.w.cleveringa{at}umcutrecht.nl)1,
  2. Paco M.J. Welsing, PhD1,
  3. Maureen van den Donk, PhD1,
  4. Kees J. Gorter, PhD1,
  5. Louis W. Niessen, PhD2,3,4,
  6. Guy E.H.M. Rutten, PhD1 and
  7. William K. Redekop, PhD2
  1. 1Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore
  4. 4 School of Medicine, Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich

    Abstract

    Objective: The Diabetes Care Protocol (DCP), a multifaceted computerized decision support diabetes management intervention, reduces cardiovascular risk of type 2 diabetes (DM2) 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 micro-simulation diabetes model, computing individual lifetime, health related costs and health effects. Incremental costs and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)) were estimated using multivariate generalized estimating equations to correct for practice-level clustering and confounding. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were created. Stroke costs were calculated separately. Subgroup analyses examined patients with and without cardiovascular disease (CVD+, CVD-).

    Results: Excluding stroke, DCP patients lived longer (0.14 life-years, ns), experienced more QALYs (0.037, ns) and incurred higher total costs (€1,415, 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 DM2 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.

    Footnotes

      • Received July 6, 2009.
      • Accepted November 15, 2009.