Improving management of glycaemic control in people with T2DM in primary care: estimation of the impact on the clinical complications and associated costs.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the potential benefits in terms of avoided complications and cost reduction if the Spanish health system would encourage the intensification of treatment for better glycaemic control in adults with Type 2 diabetes from the current HbA1c target used in clinical practice of 68 mmol/mol to a target of 53 mmol/mol. METHODS: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (version 9.0) was used to model the impact of these changes in respect of micro- and macrovascular complications and the associated costs. The modelling was based on data derived from the SIDIAP-Q population database from Catalonia, taking a random cohort of 10,000 people with type 2 diabetes and dividing it into sub-groups based on their baseline HbA1c. RESULTS: The CDM modelling showed that the average cost reduction per person varies depending on baseline HbA1c. The model estimates that after 25 years, people with a baseline HbA1c between 48 and 58 mmol/mol and > 75 mmol/mol show an average cost reduction of €6027 and €11,966, respectively. Applying the per-person cost reduction to the cohorts of the prevalent population in Spain (1,910,374) the overall estimated cost reduction was €14.7 billion over 25 years. The improvements in outcomes resulted in an estimated reduction of more than 1.2 million complications cumulatively over 25 years, of which more than 550,000 relate to diabetic foot and more than 170,000 related to renal disease. CONCLUSION: Over a 25 year period, Spain could considerably reduce costs and avoid major complications if, on a population level, more ambitious glycaemic control, according to Spanish or EU guidelines, could be achieved among people with type 2 diabetes by reducing the HbA1c threshold for treatment intensification. Although there is a slower trajectory for benefits in earlier years, there is a much more rapid benefit gain between years 5 and 15.

A review of the NG17 recommendations for the use of basal insulin in type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To revisit the data analysis used to inform National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) NG17 guidance for initiating basal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (diabetes). METHODS: We replicated the data, methodology and analysis used by NICE diabetes in the NG17 network meta-analysis (NMA). We expanded this data cohort to a more contemporary data set (extended 2017 NMA) and restricted the studies included to improve the robustness of the data set (restricted 2017 NMA) and in a post hoc analysis, changed the index comparator from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin twice daily to insulin detemir twice daily. RESULTS: The absolute changes in HbA1c were similar to those reported in the NG17. However, all 95% credible intervals for change in HbA1c point estimates crossed the line of null effect, except for detemir twice daily (in the NICE and extended 2017 NMAs) and NPH four times daily. In the detemir twice-daily centred post hoc analysis, the 95% credible intervals for change in HbA1c crossed the line of null effect for all basal therapies, except NPH. CONCLUSIONS: In NG17, comparisons of basal insulins were based solely on efficacy of glycaemic control. Many of the trials used in this analysis were treat-to-target, which minimize differences in HbA1c . In the NMAs, statistical significance was severely undermined by the wide credible intervals. Despite these limitations, point estimates of HbA1c were used to rank the insulins and formed the basis of NG17 guidance. This study queries whether such analyses should be used to make specific clinical recommendations.

Estimating the impact of better management of glycaemic control in adults with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes on the number of clinical complications and the associated financial benefit.

AIM: To estimate potential cost avoidance through modest and achievable improvements in glycaemic control in adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK healthcare system. METHODS: The IMS Core Diabetes Model was used to examine the impact of improved glycaemic control (indicated by reduction in HbA1c level), in a representative cohort of adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. The cumulative incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications was modelled across 5-year periods to a 25-year time horizon. Complication costs were applied to the data to estimate potential accrued cost avoidance. RESULTS: Significant cost avoidance of ~£340 m is apparent in the first 5 years, increasing to ~£5.5bn after 25 years of sustained improvement in control. The overwhelming majority of cost avoidance arises from reductions in microvascular complications. In people with Type 1 diabetes the greatest cost avoidance comes from a reduction in renal disease (74% of cost avoidance), while in people with Type 2 diabetes it is generated by a reduction in foot ulcers, amputations and neuropathy: 57% cost avoidance). Greater cost reduction is accrued more rapidly in people with higher starting HbA1c levels. CONCLUSION: Modest improvements in glycaemic control generate significant reductions in the incidence and, therefore, cost of microvascular complications in people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. This study provides clear support for the premise that prioritized and sustained investment in early and better intervention can provide concrete financial benefits in both the short and longer term.

Estimating the current and future costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs.

AIMS: To estimate the current and future economic burdens of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK. METHODS: A top-down approach was used to estimate costs for 2010/2011 from aggregated data sets and literature. Prevalence and population data were used to project costs for 2035/2036. Direct health costs were estimated from data on diagnosis, lifestyle interventions, ongoing treatment and management, and complications. Indirect costs were estimated from data on mortality, sickness, presenteeism (potential loss of productivity among people who remain in work) and informal care. RESULTS: Diabetes cost approximately £ 23.7bn in the UK in 2010/2011: £ 9.8bn in direct costs (£1bn for Type 1 diabetes and £ 8.8bn for Type 2 diabetes) and £ 13.9bn in indirect costs (£ 0.9bn and £ 13bn). In real terms, the 2035/2036 cost is estimated at £ 39.8bn: £ 16.9bn in direct costs (£ 1.8bn for Type 1 diabetes and £ 15.1bn for Type 2 diabetes) and £ 22.9bn in indirect costs (£ 2.4bn and £ 20.5bn). Sensitivity analysis applied to the direct costs produced a range of costs: between £ 7.9bn and £ 11.7bn in 2010/2011 and between £ 13.8bn and £20bn in 2035/2036. Diabetes currently accounts for approximately 10% of the total health resource expenditure and is projected to account for around 17% in 2035/2036. CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are prominent diseases in the UK and are a significant economic burden. Data differentiating between the costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are sparse. Complications related to the diseases account for a substantial proportion of the direct health costs. As prevalence increases, the cost of treating complications will grow if current care regimes are maintained.