The Cost-Effectiveness of Improving Diabetes Care in U.S. Federally Qualified Community Health Centers

Objective. To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of improving diabetes care with the Health Disparities Collaborative (HDC), a national collaborative quality improvement (QI) program conducted in community health centers (HCs). Data Sources/Study Settings. Data regarding the impact of the Diabetes HDC program came from a serial cross-sectional follow-up study (1998, 2000, 2002) of the program in 17 Midwestern HCs. Data inputs for the simulation model of diabetes came from the latest clinical trials and epidemiological studies. Study Design. We conducted a societal cost-effectiveness analysis, incorporating data from QI program evaluation into a Monte Carlo simulation model of diabetes. Data Collections/Extraction Methods. Data on diabetes care processes and risk factor levels were extracted from medical charts of randomly selected patients. Principal Findings. From 1998 to 2002, multiple processes of care (e.g., glycosylated hemoglobin testing [HbA1C] [71 -\u3e 92 percent] and ACE inhibitor prescribing [33 -\u3e 55 percent]) and risk factor levels (e.g., 1998 mean HbA1C 8.53 percent, mean difference 0.45 percent [95 percent confidence intervals -0.72, -0.17]) improved significantly. With these improvements, the HDC was estimated to reduce the lifetime incidence of blindness (17 -\u3e 15 percent), end-stage renal disease (18 -\u3e 15 percent), and coronary artery disease (28 -\u3e 24 percent). The average improvement in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.35 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,386/QALY. Conclusions. During the first 4 years of the HDC, multiple improvements in diabetes care were observed. If these improvements are maintained or enhanced over the lifetime of patients, the HDC program will be cost-effective for society based on traditionally accepted thresholds

Pioglitazone Use in Combination with Insulin in the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events Study (PROactive19).

Objective: In this post hoc analysis, we examined insulin requirements and regimens, glycemic control, cardiovascular outcomes, and safety in the patients treated with insulin at baseline in the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events study. Design: The Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome study (mean follow-up 34.5 months) in 5238 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes randomized to pioglitazone (force titrated to 45 mg) or placebo. One third of the total population (pioglitazone 864; placebo 896) were receiving insulin at baseline. Results: A rapid and sustained decrease in insulin dose was observed with pioglitazone vs. a progressive increase with placebo. By study end, the mean insulin dose was lower with pioglitazone (42 vs. 55 U/d with placebo; P < 0.0001). The insulin regimen (number on insulin, need for multiple injections, and reduction in oral agents) had been simplified vs. placebo; nevertheless, a greater glycosylated hemoglobin reduction was observed with pioglitazone (-0.93%) vs. placebo (-0.45%; P < 0.0001). At the final visit, insulin had been discontinued in 9% of pioglitazone vs. 2% of placebo patients (P < 0.0001). More insulin-resistant patients (defined as poorly controlled type 2 diabetes despite high doses of insulin) in the pioglitazone plus insulin group showed the greatest glycosylated hemoglobin decline. There were nonsignificant reductions with pioglitazone relative to placebo in the cardiovascular primary (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.71, 1.04; P = 0.1198) and main secondary (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.67, 1.08; P = 0.1831) end points in insulin-treated patients. The rates of overall heart failure, edema, and hypoglycemia were higher with pioglitazone [13.5 vs 10.5% (P = 0.0489); 30.8 vs. 18.2% (P < 0.0001); and 42.1 vs 29.0% (P < 0.0001), respectively], but there were no significant differences in serious events. Conclusions: Pioglitazone use in combination with insulin resulted in a sustained improved glycemic control and allowed the treatment regimens to be simplified and the insulin doses reduced

U.K Prospective Diabetes Study 22: effect of age at diagnosis on diabetic tissue damage during the first 6 years of NIDDM

Objective: to assess the effect of age at diagnosis on the initial prevalence and subsequent-risk of the progression of diabetic tissue damage in patients with NIDDM. Research design and method: the prevalence of Q- wave myocardial infarction, absent dorsalis pedis pulses, retinopathy, absent ankle jerks, hypertension, and microalbuminuria were determined at baseline and at 3 and 6 years of follow-up in five consecutive 6-year age-cohorts of 3,027 newly diagnosed white patients aged between 36 and 65 years recruited to the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study. The effect of age at diagnosis on the initial prevalence and the risk of progression of these complications and associated conditions was analyzed using logistic regression and proportional odds methods, respectively. Results: Q-wave myocardial infarction and hypertension were more prevalent in older patients at presentation, but age at diagnosis did not have a significant effect on the increased risk of either after 6 years of NIDDM. Absent dorsalis pedis pulses and ankle jerks were also more prevalent in the older age-groups at presentation, but age at diagnosis was a significant predictor of the increasing prevalence of both during follow-up. The baseline prevalence of retinopathy and microalbuminuria was not related to age. The subsequent risk of retinopathy, but not microalbuminuria, increased significantly with age at diagnosis.Conclusions: age at diagnosis has a variable impact on different types of diabetic tissue damage and may thus be art important variable in epidemiological and intervention studies in NIDDM. Regular ophthalmologic surveillance and examination of the feet increase in importance with increasing age since the diagnosis of NIDDM.</p

Effects of glucose-lowering and multifactorial interventions on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes : a meta-analysis of randomized control trials

Introduction: The effect of intensive glycaemic control alone or as part of a multifactorial intervention on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes is not fully understood. In addition, the interaction of duration of diabetes diagnosis on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes is unclear. Aim: To quantify the effect of intensive treatment (i.e. intensive glucose lowering either alone or as part of a multifactorial intervention) on non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular disease (CV) mortality and all-cause mortality in patients with Type 2 diabetes. A secondary objective was to investigate the association between the treatment effect and trial-level characteristics such as average age, duration of Type 2 diabetes, the percentage male and the baseline event rate. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without language restrictions from inception to 13 May 2015. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated intensive treatment in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes. The review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number 42014013860). We pooled rates across studies using random effects meta-analysis and investigated study-level covariate associations using Bayesian meta-regression. Results: A total of 19 RCTs were included: 16 examined non-fatal MI (n = 79 595), 14 non-fatal stroke (n = 78 568), 18 cardiovascular mortality (n = 83 938) and 18 all-cause mortality (n = 84 266). There was evidence to suggest that compared with standard care, intensive treatment reduced the risk of non-fatal MI [risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83–0.96], but not non-fatal stroke (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86–1.07), CV mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90–1.11) or all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94–1.06). Compared with standard care, multifactorial interventions alone reduced non-fatal stroke (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.0.87) but not non-fatal MI (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38–1.03), CV mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46–1.14) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64–1.05). There was no evidence to suggest that the effect of intensive treatment on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes was associated with mean age, mean duration of Type 2 diabetes and percentage of male patients across trials. There was evidence to suggest that the effectiveness of intensive treatment to reduce mortality outcomes increases as the baseline incidence of cardiovascular mortality [ratio of hazard = 0.82, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.65–0.99] increased across trials, but not baseline incidence of non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke and all-cause mortality. Intensive glucose-lowering and multifactorial interventions are predicted to have the desired beneficial effect of reducing CVD mortality in populations where the incidence rate is greater than about 6.3 CVD deaths per 1000 person-years or an average 10–year CVD risk of 6.3%. Conclusions: Apart from non-fatal MIs, there was no evidence that intensive glucose-lowering and multifactorial interventions reduced or increased the risk of cardiovascular and mortality outcomes. Intensive glucose-lowering and multifactorial interventions are likely to be beneficial in populations with a higher baseline incidence of CV mortality, but there was no evidence of an association with the mean duration of Type 2 diabetes. Multifactorial interventions had a much greater impact on non-fatal MI and non-fatal strokes