Rationale and protocol for estimating the economic value of a multicomponent quality improvement strategy for diabetes care in South Asia

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 4 - Trang 1-10 - 2019
Kavita Singh1,2, Mohammed K. Ali3, Raji Devarajan1,2, Roopa Shivashankar2, Dimple Kondal1,2, Vamadevan S. Ajay1,2, V. Usha Menon4, Premlata K. Varthakavi5, Vijay Viswanathan6, Mala Dharmalingam7, Ganapati Bantwal8, Rakesh Kumar Sahay9, Muhammad Qamar Masood10, Rajesh Khadgawat11, Ankush Desai12, Dorairaj Prabhakaran13,2,14, K. M. Venkat Narayan3, Victoria L. Phillips3, Nikhil Tandon11
1Public Health Foundation of India, Center of Excellence - Center for CArdio-metabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia, Gurgaon, India
2Centre for Chronic Disease Control, New Delhi, India
3Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, USA
4Department of Endocrinology & Diabetes, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Ponekkara P.O., Kochi, India
5Department of Endocrinology, TNM College & BYL Nair Charity Hospital, Mumbai, India
6MV Hospital for Diabetes & Diabetes Research Centre, Chennai, India
7Bangalore Endocrinology & Diabetes Research Centre, Bangalore, India
8Department of Endocrinology, St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, India
9Department of Endocrinology, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, India
10Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
11Department of Endocrinology & Metabolism, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
12Endocrine Unit, Department of Medicine, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, India
13Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, India
14London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Tóm tắt

Economic dimensions of implementing quality improvement for diabetes care are understudied worldwide. We describe the economic evaluation protocol within a randomised controlled trial that tested a multi-component quality improvement (QI) strategy for individuals with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes in South Asia. This economic evaluation of the Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia (CARRS) randomised trial involved 1146 people with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes receiving care at 10 diverse diabetes clinics across India and Pakistan. The economic evaluation comprises both a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (mean 2.5 years follow up) and a microsimulation model-based cost-utility analysis (life-time horizon). Effectiveness measures include multiple risk factor control (achieving HbA1c < 7% and blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg and/or LDL-cholesterol< 100 mg/dl), and patient reported outcomes including quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-3 L, hospitalizations, and diabetes related complications at the trial end. Cost measures include direct medical and non-medical costs relevant to outpatient care (consultation fee, medicines, laboratory tests, supplies, food, and escort/accompanying person costs, transport) and inpatient care (hospitalization, transport, and accompanying person costs) of the intervention compared to usual diabetes care. Patient, healthcare system, and societal perspectives will be applied for costing. Both cost and health effects will be discounted at 3% per year for within trial cost-effectiveness analysis over 2.5 years and decision modelling analysis over a lifetime horizon. Outcomes will be reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to achieve multiple risk factor control, avoid diabetes-related complications, or QALYs gained against varying levels of willingness to pay threshold values. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess uncertainties around ICER estimates by varying costs (95% CIs) across public vs. private settings and using conservative estimates of effect size (95% CIs) for multiple risk factor control. Costs will be reported in US$ 2018. We hypothesize that the additional upfront costs of delivering the intervention will be counterbalanced by improvements in clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes, thereby rendering this multi-component QI intervention cost-effective in resource constrained South Asian settings. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01212328 .

Tài liệu tham khảo

Basu S, Bendavid E, Sood N. Health and economic implications of National Treatment Coverage for cardiovascular disease in India: cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(6):541–51.

Ali MK, Singh K, Kondal D, Devarajan R, Patel SA, Shivashankar R, Ajay VS, Unnikrishnan AG, Menon VU, Varthakavi PK, et al. Effectiveness of a multicomponent quality improvement strategy to improve achievement of diabetes care goals: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(6):399–408.

Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, Evans DB, Murray CJL. WHO Guide to Cost-effectiveness analysis; 2003.

Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, Kuntz KM, Meltzer DO, Owens DK, Prosser LA, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.

Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, Clarke P. Missing... presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ. 2003;12(5):377–92.

Gaede P, Valentine WJ, Palmer AJ, Tucker DM, Lammert M, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Cost-effectiveness of intensified versus conventional multifactorial intervention in type 2 diabetes: results and projections from the Steno-2 study. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1510–5.

Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

Leggett LE, Khadaroo RG, Holroyd-Leduc J, Lorenzetti DL, Hanson H, Wagg A, Padwal R, Clement F. Measuring resource utilization: a systematic review of validated self-reported questionnaires. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(10):e2759.

World Health Organization 2001. Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development. http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/PEAMMarch2005/CMHReport.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2019.