title: Estimating the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention programmes to prevent diabetes based on an example from Germany: Markov modelling.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) poses a large worldwide burden for health care systems. One possible tool to decrease this burden is primary prevention. As it is unethical to wait until perfect data are available to conclude whether T2D primary prevention intervention programmes are cost-effective, we need a model that simulates the effect of prevention initiatives. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention programmes for the prevention of T2D using a Markov model. As decision makers often face difficulties in applying health economic results, we visualise our results with health economic tools.
  
  
  METHODS
  We use four-state Markov modelling with a probabilistic cohort analysis to calculate the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A one-year cycle length and a lifetime time horizon are applied. Best available evidence supplies the model with data on transition probabilities between glycaemic states, mortality risks, utility weights, and disease costs. The costs are calculated from a societal perspective. A 3% discount rate is used for costs and QALYs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves are presented to assist decision makers.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The model indicates that diabetes prevention interventions have the potential to be cost-effective, but the outcome reveals a high level of uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were negative for the intervention, ie, the intervention leads to a cost reduction for men and women aged 30 or 50 years at initiation of the intervention. For men and women aged 70 at initiation of the intervention, the ICER was EUR27,546/QALY gained and EUR19,433/QALY gained, respectively. In all cases, the QALYs gained were low. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves show that the higher the willingness-to-pay threshold value, the higher the probability that the intervention is cost-effective. Nonetheless, all curves are flat. The threshold value of EUR50,000/QALY gained has a 30-55% probability that the intervention is cost-effective.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Lifestyle interventions for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes are cost-saving for men and women aged 30 or 50 years at the start of the intervention, and cost-effective for men and women aged 70 years. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty around the ICERs. With the conservative approach adopted for this model, the long-term effectiveness of the intervention could be underestimated.
authors.affiliation: Epidemiology and Global Health, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. anne.neumann@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
authors.forename: Anne
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Neumann
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Schwarz
authors.forename: Lars
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Lindholm
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Mar;94(3):920-6
references.pmid: 19106274
references.citation: Scand J Public Health. 2006;34(5):453-61
references.pmid: 16990155
references.citation: BMJ. 2005 Oct 15;331(7521):903
references.pmid: 16223828
references.citation: Internist (Berl). 2007 Jul;48(7):708-14
references.pmid: 17576527
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):458-63
references.pmid: 11874930
references.citation: Diabetologia. 2003 Feb;46(2):182-9
references.pmid: 12627316
references.citation: Fam Pract. 2006 Aug;23(4):391-2
references.pmid: 16837481
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2320-1
references.pmid: 16123511
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2005 Mar 1;142(5):323-32
references.pmid: 15738451
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2009 Jul;32(7):1143-6
references.pmid: 19509014
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2009 Feb;18(1):87-97
references.pmid: 19051058
references.citation: Health Promot Int. 2007 Dec;22(4):271-83
references.pmid: 17916604
references.citation: Clin Ther. 2004 Feb;26(2):304-21
references.pmid: 15038953
references.citation: Lancet. 2006 Nov 11;368(9548):1673-9
references.pmid: 17098085
references.citation: Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010 Aug;7(8):3150-95
references.pmid: 20948954
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2001 May 3;344(18):1343-50
references.pmid: 11333990
references.citation: Horm Metab Res. 2010 Apr;42 Suppl 1:S3-36
references.pmid: 20391306
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2130-5
references.pmid: 16123478
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 May;17(5):461-77
references.pmid: 10977388
references.citation: Lancet. 2008 May 24;371(9626):1783-9
references.pmid: 18502303
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 1998 Apr;13(4):397-409
references.pmid: 10178664
references.citation: Diabet Med. 2004 Nov;21(11):1229-36
references.pmid: 15498090
references.citation: Horm Metab Res. 2010 Apr;42 Suppl 1:S37-55
references.pmid: 20391307
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 May 24;336(7654):1180-5
references.pmid: 18426840
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Mar 1;169(5):562-71
references.pmid: 19126587
references.citation: Public Health Rep. 2007 Mar-Apr;122(2):258-63
references.pmid: 17357369