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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS/DESIGN: 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. DISCUSSION: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01212328

Cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent quality improvement care model for diabetes in South Asia: The CARRS randomized clinical trial

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent strategy versus usual care in people with type 2 diabetes in South Asia. Design: Economic evaluation from healthcare system and societal perspectives. Setting: Ten diverse urban clinics in India and Pakistan. Participants: 1146 people with type 2 diabetes (575 in the intervention group and 571 in the usual care group) with mean age of 54.2 years, median diabetes duration: 7 years and mean HbA1c: 9.9% (85 mmol/mol) at baseline. Intervention: Multicomponent strategy comprising decision-supported electronic health records and non-physician care coordinator. Control group received usual care. Outcome measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per unit achievement in multiple risk factor control (HbA1c \u3c7% (53 mmol/mol) and SBP \u3c130/80 mmHg or LDLc \u3c2.58 mmol/L (100 mg/dL)), ICERs per unit reduction in HbA1c, 5-mmHg unit reductions in systolic BP, 10-unit reductions in LDLc (mg/dl) (considered as clinically relevant) and ICER per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. ICERs were reported in 2020 purchasing power parity-adjusted international dollars (INT$). The probability of ICERs being cost-effective was considered depending on the willingness to pay (WTP) values as a share of GDP per capita for India (Int$ 7041.4) and Pakistan (Int$4847.6). Results: Compared to usual care, the annual incremental costs per person for intervention group were Int$ 1061.9 from a health system perspective and Int$1093.6 from a societal perspective. The ICER was Int$ 10,874.6 per increase in multiple risk factor control, $2588.1 per one percentage point reduction in the HbA1c, and$1744.6 per 5 unit reduction in SBP (mmHg), and $1271 per 10 unit reduction in LDLc (mg/dl). The ICER per QALY gained was$33,399.6 from a societal perspective. Conclusions: In a trial setting in South Asia, a multicomponent strategy for diabetes care resulted in better multiple risk factor control at higher costs and may be cost-effective depending on the willingness to pay threshold with substantial uncertainty around cost-effectiveness for QALYs gained in the short term (2.5 years). Future research needs to confirm the long-term cost-effectiveness of intensive multifactorial intervention for diabetes care in diverse healthcare settings in LMIC