PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 569–585 | Cite as

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

  • Martin Henriksson
  • Ramandeep Jindal
  • Catarina Sternhufvud
  • Klas Bergenheim
  • Elisabeth Sörstadius
  • Michael Willis
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Critiques of cost-effectiveness modelling in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) are scarce and are often undertaken in combination with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) models. However, T1DM is a separate disease, and it is therefore important to appraise modelling methods in T1DM.

Objectives

This review identified published economic models in T1DM and provided an overview of the characteristics and capabilities of available models, thus enabling a discussion of best-practice modelling approaches in T1DM.

Methods

A systematic review of Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process, and NHS EED was conducted to identify available models in T1DM. Key conferences and health technology assessment (HTA) websites were also reviewed. The characteristics of each model (e.g. model structure, simulation method, handling of uncertainty, incorporation of treatment effect, data for risk equations, and validation procedures, based on information in the primary publication) were extracted, with a focus on model capabilities.

Results

We identified 13 unique models. Overall, the included studies varied greatly in scope as well as in the quality and quantity of information reported, but six of the models (Archimedes, CDM [Core Diabetes Model], CRC DES [Cardiff Research Consortium Discrete Event Simulation], DCCT [Diabetes Control and Complications Trial], Sheffield, and EAGLE [Economic Assessment of Glycaemic control and Long-term Effects of diabetes]) were the most rigorous and thoroughly reported. Most models were Markov based, and cohort and microsimulation methods were equally common. All of the more comprehensive models employed microsimulation methods. Model structure varied widely, with the more holistic models providing a comprehensive approach to microvascular and macrovascular events, as well as including adverse events. The majority of studies reported a lifetime horizon, used a payer perspective, and had the capability for sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

Several models have been developed that provide useful insight into T1DM modelling. Based on a review of the models identified in this study, we identified a set of ‘best in class’ methods for the different technical aspects of T1DM modelling.

Supplementary material

40273_2015_374_MOESM1_ESM.docx (131 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 130 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    de Ferranti SD, de Boer IH, Fonseca V, Fox CS, Golden SH, Lavie CJ, et al. Type 1 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(10):2843–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Achenbach P, Bonifacio E, Koczwara K, Ziegler AG. Natural history of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2005;54(Suppl 2):S25–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Belle TL, Coppieters KT, von Herrath MG. Type 1 diabetes: etiology, immunology, and therapeutic strategies. Physiol Rev. 2011;91(1):79–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(4):1033–46.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller KM, Foster NC, Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, DuBose SN, DiMeglio LA, et al. Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the US: updated data from the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(6):971–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lind M, Svensson AM, Kosiborod M, Gudbjornsdottir S, Pivodic A, Wedel H, et al. Glycemic control and excess mortality in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1972–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laing SP, Swerdlow AJ, Slater SD, Botha JL, Burden AC, Waugh NR, et al. The British Diabetic Association Cohort Study, II: cause-specific mortality in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 1999;16(6):466–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palmer AJ, Clarke P, Gray A, Leal J, Lloyd A, Grant D, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fifth Mount Hood challenge meeting. Value Health. 2013;16(4):670–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mount Hood 4 Modeling Group. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(6):1638–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chatterjee S, Davies M. Type 2 diabetes: recent advances in diagnosis and management. Prescriber. 2015;26(10):15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tao B, Pietropaolo M, Atkinson M, Schatz D, Taylor D. Estimating the cost of type 1 diabetes in the US: a propensity score matching method. PLoS One. 2010;5(7):e11501.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yi Y, Philips Z, Bergman G, Burslem K. Economic models in type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(9):2105–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tarride JE, Hopkins R, Blackhouse G, Bowen JM, Bischof M, Von KC, et al. A review of methods used in long-term cost-effectiveness models of diabetes mellitus treatment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(4):255–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, Minshall ME, Foos V, Lurati FM, et al. The CORE Diabetes Model: projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(Suppl 1):S5–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cummins E, Royle P, Snaith A, Greene A, Robertson L, McIntyre L, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous infusion for diabetes: updating review. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nathan DM. Lifetime benefits and costs of intensive therapy as practiced in the diabetes control and complications trial. JAMA. 1996;276(17):1409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tomar RH, Lee S, Wu SY, Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, et al. Disease progression and cost of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: development and application of a simulation model. J Soc Health Syst. 1998;5(4):24–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scuffham P, Carr L. The cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion compared with multiple daily injections for the management of diabetes. Diabet Med. 2003;20(7):586–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McEwan P, Poole CD, Tetlow T, Holmes P, Currie CJ. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(1):S7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shearer A, Bagust A, Sanderson D, Heller S, Roberts S. Cost-effectiveness of flexible intensive insulin management to enable dietary freedom in people with Type 1 diabetes in the UK. Diabet Med. 2004;21(5):460–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mueller E, Maxion-Bergemann S, Gultyaev D, Walzer S, Freemantle N, Mathieu C, et al. Development and validation of the economic assessment of glycemic control and long-term effects of diabetes (EAGLE) model. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006;8(2):219–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grima DT, Thompson MF, Sauriol L. Modelling cost effectiveness of insulin glargine for the treatment of type 1 and 2 diabetes in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(3):253–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Airoldi M, Bevan G, Morton A, Oliveira M, Smith J. Requisite models for strategic commissioning: the example of type 1 diabetes. Health Care Manage Sci. 2008;11(2):89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beckwith J, Nyman JA, Flanagan B, Schrover R, Schuurman HJ. A health economic analysis of clinical islet transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2012;26(1):23–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kruger J, Brennan A, Thokala P, Basarir H, Jacques R, Elliott J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE) structured education programme: an update using the Sheffield Type 1 Diabetes Policy Model. Diabet Med. 2013;30(10):1236–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McQueen RB, Ellis SL, Campbell JD, Nair KV, Sullivan PW. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring and intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;9(13):1–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eddy DM, Schlessinger L. Archimedes: a trial-validated model of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(11):3093–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Javitt JC, Aiello LP, Bassi LJ, Chiang YP, Canner JK. Detecting and treating retinopathy in patients with type I diabetes mellitus. Savings associated with improved implementation of current guidelines. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(10):1565–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Allen C, Palta M, D’Alessio DJ. Incidence and differences in urban-rural seasonal variation of type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes in Wisconsin. Diabetologia. 1986;29(9):629–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Javitt JC, Aiello LP. Cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124(1 Pt 2):164–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Muhlhauser I, Sawicki PT, Blank M, Overmann H, Bender R, Berger M. Prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes on intensified insulin therapy in relation to nephropathy. J Intern Med. 2000;248(4):333–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rubin A. Diabetes for dummies. New York: Hungry Minds; 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krolewski AS, Warram JH, Christlieb AR, Busick EJ, Kahn CR. The changing natural history of nephropathy in type I diabetes. Am J Med. 1985;78(5):785–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    DRS Research Group. Photocoagulation treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Clinical application of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) findings, DRS Report Number 8. The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology. 1981;88(7):583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The prevalence and incidence of lower extremity amputation in a diabetic population. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(3):610–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bild DE, Selby JV, Sinnock P, Browner WS, Braveman P, Showstack JA. Lower-extremity amputation in people with diabetes. Epidemiology and prevention. Diabetes Care. 1989;12(1):24–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pampanelli S, Fanelli C, Lalli C, Ciofetta M, Sindaco PD, Lepore M, et al. Long-term intensive insulin therapy in IDDM: effects on HbA1c, risk for severe and mild hypoglycaemia, status of counterregulation and awareness of hypoglycaemia. Diabetologia. 1996;39(6):677–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Copley-Merriman C, Maier W, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM. II. Analysis of the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of treating NIDDM with the goal of normoglycemia. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(5):735–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Zbrozek AS, Dong F, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM. I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(5):725–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rossing P, Hougaard P, Borch-Johnsen K, Parving HH. Predictors of mortality in insulin dependent diabetes: 10 year observational follow up study. BMJ. 1996;313(7060):779–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Klein R, Klein BE, Lee KE, Moss SE, Cruickshanks KJ. Prevalence of self-reported erectile dysfunction in people with long-term IDDM. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(2):135–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Palmer AJ, Weiss C, Sendi PP, Neeser K, Brandt A, Singh G, et al. The cost-effectiveness of different management strategies for Type I diabetes: a Swiss perspective. Diabetologia. 2000;43(1):13–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Soedamah-Muthu SS, Fuller JH, Mulnier HE, Raleigh VS, Lawrenson RA, Colhoun HM. All-cause mortality rates in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus compared with a non-diabetic population from the UK general practice research database, 1992–1999. Diabetologia. 2006;49(4):660–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wu SY, Sainfort F, Tomar RH, Tollios JL, Fryback DG, Klein R, et al. Development and application of a model to estimate the impact of type 1 diabetes on health-related quality of life. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(5):725–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Selvin E, Marinopoulos S, Berkenblit G, Rami T, Brancati FL, Powe NR, et al. Meta-analysis: glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(6):421–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McEwan P, Foos V, Palmer JL, Lamotte M, Lloyd A, Grant D. Validation of the IMS CORE diabetes model. Value Health. 2014;17(6):714–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, Minshall ME, Foos V, Lurati FM, et al. Validation of the CORE diabetes model against epidemiological and clinical studies. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(Suppl 1):S27–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Eddy DM, Schlessinger L. Validation of the archimedes diabetes model. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(11):3102–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Basarir H, Pollard D, Brennan A, Elliott J, Heller S, Campbell MJ. The potential value of ongoing support in type-1 diabetes mellitus with dafneplus: exploratory pre-trial cost-effectiveness analysis on proposed trial end-point target for 12-month hba1c improvement. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Heller S, Lawton J, Amiel S, Cooke D, Mansell P, Brennan A, et al. Improving management of type 1 diabetes in the UK: the Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating (DAFNE) programme as a research test-bed. A mixed-method analysis of the barriers to and facilitators of successful diabetes self-management, a health economic analysis, a cluster randomised controlled trial of different models of delivery of an educational intervention and the potential of insulin pumps and additional educator input to improve outcomes. Programme Grants Appl Res; 2014 Dec.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Asche CV, Hippler SE, Eurich DT. Review of models used in economic analyses of new oral treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(1):15–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Becker C, Langer A, Leidl R. The quality of three decision-analytic diabetes models: a systematic health economic assessment. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(6):751–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wolowacz S, Pearson I, Shannon P, Chubb B, Gundgaard J, Davies M, et al. Development and validation of a cost-utility model for Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2015;32(8):1023–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):733–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Laing S, et al. The British Diabetic Association Cohort Study, I: all-cause mortality in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 1999;16(6):459-65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Henriksson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ramandeep Jindal
    • 3
  • Catarina Sternhufvud
    • 4
  • Klas Bergenheim
    • 4
  • Elisabeth Sörstadius
    • 4
  • Michael Willis
    • 5
  1. 1.PAREXEL InternationalStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Medical and Health SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.PAREXEL InternationalChandigarhIndia
  4. 4.Global Medicines Development | Global Payer Evidence and PricingAstraZenecaMölndalSweden
  5. 5.The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, IHELundSweden

Personalised recommendations