Michaud Tzeyu L, Wilson Kathryn E, Katula Jeffrey A, You Wen, Estabrooks Paul A
Department of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Center for Reducing Health Disparities, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Transl Behav Med. 2023 Jul 1;13(7):501-510. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibad008.
Although technology-assisted diabetes prevention programs (DPPs) have been shown to improve glycemic control and weight loss, information are limited regarding relevant costs and their cost-effectiveness. To describe a retrospective within-trial cost and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare a digital-based DPP (d-DPP) with small group education (SGE), over a 1-year study period. The costs were summarized into direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs (i.e., times that participants spent engaging with the interventions), and indirect costs (i.e., lost work productivity costs). The CEA was measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed using nonparametric bootstrap analysis. Over 1 year, the direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, and indirect costs per participant were $4,556, $1,595, and $6,942 in the d-DPP group versus $4,177, $1,350, and $9,204 in the SGE group. The CEA results showed cost savings from d-DPP relative to SGE based on a societal perspective. Using a private payer perspective for d-DPP, ICERs were $4,739 and $114 to obtain an additional unit reduction in HbA1c (%) and weight (kg), and were $19,955 for an additional unit gain of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to SGE, respectively. From a societal perspective, bootstrapping results indicated that d-DPP has a 39% and a 69% probability, at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, respectively, of being cost-effective. The d-DPP was cost-effective and offers the prospect of high scalability and sustainability due to its program features and delivery modes, which can be easily translated to other settings.
尽管技术辅助糖尿病预防项目(DPPs)已被证明可改善血糖控制和减轻体重,但有关相关成本及其成本效益的信息有限。为了描述一项回顾性试验内成本和成本效益分析(CEA),以比较基于数字的DPP(d-DPP)与小组教育(SGE)在1年研究期内的情况。成本总结为直接医疗成本、直接非医疗成本(即参与者参与干预所花费的时间)和间接成本(即工作生产力损失成本)。CEA通过增量成本效益比(ICER)来衡量。使用非参数自助分析进行敏感性分析。在1年时间里,d-DPP组每位参与者的直接医疗成本、直接非医疗成本和间接成本分别为4556美元、1595美元和6942美元,而SGE组分别为4177美元、1350美元和9204美元。CEA结果显示,从社会角度来看,d-DPP相对于SGE可节省成本。从d-DPP的私人支付者角度来看,获得HbA1c(%)和体重(kg)额外降低一个单位的ICER分别为4739美元和114美元,与SGE相比,获得质量调整生命年(QALYs)额外增加一个单位的ICER为19955美元。从社会角度来看,自助分析结果表明,在支付意愿为50000美元/QALY和100000美元/QALY时,d-DPP具有成本效益的概率分别为39%和69%。d-DPP具有成本效益,并且由于其项目特点和交付模式,具有高可扩展性和可持续性的前景,可轻松推广到其他环境。