PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 22, Issue 15, pp 1015–1027 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of ACE Inhibitor Treatment for Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

  • Frederick B. Dong
  • Stephen W. Sorensen
  • Diane L. Manninen
  • Theodore J. Thompson
  • Venkat Narayan
  • Carlyn E. Orians
  • Edward W. Gregg
  • Richard C. Eastman
  • Erik J. Dasbach
  • William H. Herman
  • Jeffrey M. Newman
  • Andrew S. Narva
  • David J. Ballard
  • Michael M. Engelgau
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective: Current guidelines recommend treating patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus with ACE inhibitors after the onset of microalbuminuria. Recent clinical trials have shown ACE inhibitors can affect the development of nephropathy when initiated prior to the onset of microalbuminuria. Our objective is to examine the cost effectiveness of treating adults aged over 20 years with an ACE inhibitor (captopril) immediately following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes versus treating them after the onset of microalbuminuria.

Design: Using a semi-Markov model, we calculated four main outcome measures: lifetime direct medical costs (discounted), QALYs, cumulative incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and number of days of ESRD over a lifetime. Medical costs are in 1999 US dollars.

Setting: All analyses were from the viewpoint of a single US payer responsible for all direct medical costs, including screening for microalbuminuria, ACE inhibitor treatment (captopril), management of major diabetic complications, and routine annual medical costs not specific to diabetes.

Methods: We applied the model to a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 persons newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Distribution of sex and race/ethnicity within the cohort is representative of the general US population.

Results: We estimated that the incremental cost of early use of captopril for the average adult with type 1 diabetes is $US27 143 per QALY. This level varies considerably with age and glycaemic level. When the age at onset of diabetes is 20 years and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level is 9%, the cost-effectiveness ratio is $US13 814 per QALY. When the age at onset is 25 years and HbA1c level is 7%, the cost-effectiveness ratio is $US39 530 per QALY.

Conclusion: This model, with its underlying assumptions and data, suggests that early treatment with captopril provides modest benefit at reasonable cost effectiveness, from the US single-payer perspective, in the prevention of ESRD compared with delaying treatment until diagnosis of microalbuminuria. Early treatment with other ACE inhibitors will provide similar cost effectiveness if they have equivalent efficacy, compliance and price per dose. Treatment may be considered among patients at age 20 years with new onset of type 1 diabetes. This conclusion is sensitive to the extent that ACE inhibitors delay onset of microalbuminuria. Other factors such as the patient’s age and glycaemic level must be considered when deciding to initiate early treatment.

References

  1. 1.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Effect of intensive therapy on the development and progression of diabetic nephropathy in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Kidney Int 1995; 47: 1703–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeFronzo RA. Diabetic nephropathy: etiologic and therapeutic considerations. Diabetes Rev 1995; 3: 510–64Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    US Renal Data System. USRDS 2001 annual data report. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2001Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ravid M, Savin H, Jutrin I, et al. Long-term stabilizing effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on plasma creatinine and on proteinuria in normotensive type II diabetic patients. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 577–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Viberti G, Mogensen CE, Groop LC, et al. Effect of captopril on progression to clinical proteinuria in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria. JAMA 1994; 271: 275–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, et al. The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy: The Collaborative Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1456–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kasiske BL, Kalil RS, Ma JZ, et al. Effect of antihypertensive therapy on the kidney in patients with diabetes: a meta-regression analysis. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 129–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wiegmann TB, Herron KG, Chonko AM, et al. Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on renal function and albuminuria in normotensive type I diabetic patients. Diabetes 1992; 41: 62–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bjorck S, Mulec H, Johnsen SA, et al. Renal protective effect of enalapril in diabetic nephropathy. BMJ 1992; 304: 339–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mathiesen ER, Ronn B, Jensen T, et al. Relationship between blood pressure and urinary albumin excretion in development of microalbuminuria. Diabetes 1990; 39: 245–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mogensen CE. Long-term antihypertensive treatment inhibiting progression of diabetic nephropathy. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 285: 685–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christensen CK, Mogensen CE. Antihypertensive treatment: long-term reversal of progression of albuminuria in incipient diabetic nephropathy: a longitudinal study of renal function. J Diabet Complications 1987; 1: 45–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kiberd BA, Jindal KK. Screening to prevent renal failure in insulin dependent diabetic patients: an economic evaluation. BMJ 1995; 311: 1595–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiberd BA, Jindal KK. Routine treatment of insulin-dependent diabetic patients with ACE inhibitors to prevent renal failure: an economic evaluation. Am J Kidney Dis 1998; 31: 49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    EUCLID Study Group. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of lisinopril in normotensive patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and normoalbuminuria or microalbuminuria. Lancet 1997; 349: 1787–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ravid M, Brosh D, Levi Z, et al. Use of enalapril to attenuate decline in renal function in normotensive, normoalbuminuric patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1999; 128: 982–8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Diabetes Association. Diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Care 2002; 25 Suppl. 1: S85–9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Resource utilization and costs of care in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes Care 1995; 18: 1468–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Lifetime benefits and costs of intensive therapy as practiced in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. JAMA 1996; 276: 1409–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM: I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 725–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, 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: 735–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eckman MH, Greenfield S, Mackey WC, et al. Foot infections in diabetic patients: decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1995; 273: 712–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Health Care Financing Administration. Health Care Financing research report: end-stage renal disease, 1993–1995. Baltimore (MD): Health Care Financing Administration, 1998Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krolewski AS, Kosinski EJ, Warram JH, et al. Magnitude and determinants of coronary artery disease in juvenile-onset insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 1987; 59: 750–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Retinopathy and nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes four years after a trial of intensive therapy. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 381–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Javitt JC, Aiello LP, Chiang Y, et al. Preventive eye care in people with diabetes is cost-saving to the federal government: implications for Health Care Reform. Diabetes Care 1994; 17: 909–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Balkin SW. Letter to editor. JAMA 1995; 273: 18Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    American Heart Association. Heart and stroke facts: statistical supplement. Dallas (TX): American Heart Association, 1999Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Medical Economics. Red Book. Montvale (NJ): Medical Economics Company Inc., 2000Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Medical Economics. Physicians’ desk reference. Montvale (NJ): Medical Economics Company Inc., 1998Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dasbach EJ, Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. Health utility preference differences [abstract]. Med Decis Making 1992; 12: 4Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lawrence WF, Grist TM, Brazy PC, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography in progressive renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis 1995; 25: 701–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996,309Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    IMS America. National prescription audit plus basic data report, dispensed data, vol. 1 (Jan–Mar), 1998Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    LaPorte RE, Matsushima M, Chang YF. Prevalence and incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes. In: Diabetes in America. 2nd ed. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health, 1995Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Golan L, Birkmeyer JD, Welch HG. The cost-effectiveness of treating all patients with type 2 diabetes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 660–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet 2000; 355: 253–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Breyer JA, Bain RP, Evans JK, et al. Predictors of the progression of renal insufficiency in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and overt diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 1651–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, et al. The lO-year incidence of renal insufficiency in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 743–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ravid M, Brosh D, Ravid-Safran D, et al. Main risk factors for nephropathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus are plasma cholesterol levels, mean blood pressure, and hyperglycemia. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 998–1004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sawicki PT, Didjurgeitt U, Muhlhauser I, et al. Smoking is associated with progression of diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Care 1994; 17: 126–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    National Institutes of Health. Update on the Task Force Report (1987) on high blood pressure in children and adolescents: a working group report from the National High Blood Pressure Education Program. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health, National High Blood Pressure Education Program, 1996Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gold AE, Reilly R, Little J, et al. The effect of glycaemic control in the pre-conception period and early pregnancy on birth weight in women with IDDM. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 535–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick B. Dong
    • 1
  • Stephen W. Sorensen
    • 2
  • Diane L. Manninen
    • 1
  • Theodore J. Thompson
    • 2
  • Venkat Narayan
    • 2
  • Carlyn E. Orians
    • 1
  • Edward W. Gregg
    • 2
  • Richard C. Eastman
    • 3
  • Erik J. Dasbach
    • 4
  • William H. Herman
    • 5
  • Jeffrey M. Newman
    • 6
  • Andrew S. Narva
    • 7
  • David J. Ballard
    • 8
  • Michael M. Engelgau
    • 2
  1. 1.Battelle, Centers for Public Health Research and EvaluationSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Cygnus, Inc.Redwood CityUSA
  4. 4.Merck & Co.West PointUSA
  5. 5.University of Michigan, Internal Medicine and EpidemiologyAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Sutter Health Institute for Research and EducationSan FranciscoUSA
  7. 7.Indian Health Kidney Disease ProgramAlbuquerqueUSA
  8. 8.Health Care Research and Improvement, Baylor Health Care SystemDallasUSA
  9. 9.Division of Diabetes TranslationCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations