The clinical role and the potential benefit of self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) for patients with type 2 diabetes are still under discussion. Even less information is available on the cost-effectiveness of performing SMBG by this patient group. The goal of this study was to establish cost-effectiveness ratios of performing SMBG by patients afflicted by this disease.
Methods:
We assessed the benefit and cost-effectiveness of SMBG in type 2 diabetes from a third-party payer perspective based on results of both a large epidemiologic cohort study reflecting the reality of care, and a Markov model calculation.
Results:
Analysis of cohort study data revealed that total costs cumulated over the observation period of 8 years were lower in the SMBG group than in the non-SMBG group according to savings of € 1'714 [oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) only] and € 13'815 (OAD + insulin) per patient. Several scenarios were considered in the model-based calculation. The cost-effectiveness ratio varied from € 20'768/life year gained to domination of SMBG use compared to nonusers in OAD treated patients and from € 59'057/life year gained to domination of SMBG use compared to nonusers in OAD + insulin treated patients.
Conclusion:
Results indicate that SMBG in type 2 diabetes offers an excellent opportunity to get a high investment-outcome ratio in the treatment of this pandemic disease.
IppEAquinoRLChristensonP. Point: Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetic patients not receiving insulin: the sanguine approach. Diabetes Care. 2005 Jun; 28 (6): 1528–30.
2.
DavidsonMB. Counterpoint: Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetic patients not receiving insulin: a waste of money. Diabetes Care. 2005 Jun; 28 (6): 1531–3.
3.
WelschenLMBloemendalENijpelsGDekkerJMHeineRJStalmanWABouterLM. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2005 Jun; 28 (6): 1510–7.
4.
SarolJNNicodemusNATanKMGravaMB. Self-monitoring of blood glucose as part of a multi-component therapy among non-insulin requiring type 2 diabetes patients: a meta-analysis (1966–2004). Curr Med Res Opin. 2005 Feb; 21 (2): 173–83.
5.
JansenJP. Self-monitoring of glucose in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Bayesian meta-analysis of direct and indirect comparisons. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Apr; 22 (4): 671–81.
6.
MartinSSchneiderBHeinemannLLodwigVKurthHJKolbHScherbaumWA. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes and long-term outcome: an epidemiological cohort study. Diabetologia. 2006 Feb; 49 (2): 271–8.
7.
KarterAJAckersonLMDarbinianJAD'AgostinoRBJr.FerraraALiuJSelbyJV. Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels and glycemic control: the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Diabetes registry. Am J Med. 2001 Jul; 111 (1): 1–9.
8.
KarterAJParkerMMMoffetHHSpenceMMChanJEttnerSLSelbyJV. Longitudinal study of new and prevalent use of self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug; 29 (8): 1757–63.
9.
DavisWABruceDGDavisTM. Is self-monitoring of blood glucose appropriate for all type 2 diabetic patients?. The Fremantle Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug; 29 (8): 1764–70.
10.
International Diabetes Federation. Diabetes atlas. 2nd ed. Paris, France; 2003.
11.
HaunerH. [Epidemiology and costs of diabetes mellitus in Germany]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2005 Jul 8; 130Suppl 2: S64–5.
12.
WeberCNeeserKWenzelHSchneiderB. [Costs of diabetes mellitus type 2 and self measurement of blood glucose in Germany]. Versicherungsmedizin. 2006 Sep 1; 58 (3): 133–7.
13.
O'BrienJAPatrickARCaroJ. Estimates of direct medical costs for microvascular and macrovascular complications resulting from type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States in 2000. Clin Ther. 2003 Mar; 25 (3): 1017–38.
14.
O'BrienJAPatrickARCaroJJ. Cost of managing complications resulting from type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003 Mar 21; 3 (1): 7.
NeeserKErny-AlbrechtKWeberC. Cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetic patients not receiving insulin. Diabetes Care. 2006 Feb; 29 (2): 480.
17.
PalmerAJDinneenSGavinJRGrayAHermanWHKarterAJ. Cost-utility analysis in a UK setting of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 May; 22 (5): 861–72.
18.
WeberCNeeserKWenzelHSchneiderB. Cost of type 2 diabetes in Germany over 8 years (the ROSSO study No. 2). J Med Econ. 2006; 9: 45–53.
19.
WeberCNeeserK. Using individualized predictive disease modeling to identify patients with the potential to benefit from a disease management program for diabetes mellitus. Dis Manag. 2006 Aug; 9 (4): 242–56.
MeyerGMuhlhauserI. Comment to: MartinSSchneiderBHeinemannL (2006) Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes and long-term outcome: an epidemiological cohort study. Diabetologia49: 271–278. Diabetologia. 2006 Jul; 49 (7): 1702–173.
22.
MartinSHeinemannLScherbaumWAKolbH. Reply to comment on: MartinSSchneiderBHeinemannL (2006) Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes and long-term outcome: an epidemiological cohort study. Diabetologia49: 271–278. Diabetologia. 2006; 49 (7): 1704–5.
23.
WeinsteinMCToyELSandbergEANeumannPJEvansJSKuntzKMGrahamJDHammittJK. Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles, and validity. Value Health. 2001 Sep; 4 (5): 348–61.
24.
WeinsteinMCO'BrienBHornbergerJJacksonJJohannessonMMcCabeCLuceBR; ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003 Jan-Feb; 6 (1): 9–17.
25.
WeinsteinMC. A Report of the ISPOR Health Science Committee-Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. ISPOR 2005.
26.
SulpherMDrummondM. Analysis Sans Frontières: Can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions?. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006 Jan 1; 24 (11): 1087–99.
27.
MancaAWillanA. “Lost in translation”: Accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006 Jan 1; 24 (11): 1101–19.
28.
HinzpeterBKlever-DeichertGWendlandGLauterbachKW. [Coronary disease and social security. A simulation model on cost analysis]. Herz. 2000 Aug; 25 (5): 515–25.
29.
SzucsTDSchwenkglenksMPaschenBFollathF. [Cost-effectiveness of bisoprolol in treatment of heart failure in Germany. An analysis based on the CIBIS-II study]. Med Klin (Munich). 2000 Dec 15; 95 (12): 663–71.
30.
BanzKDinkelRHanefeldMSchwanebeckU. Evaluation of the potential clinical and economic effects of bodyweight stabilisation with acarbose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A decision-analytical approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998 Apr; 13 (4): 449–59.
31.
LaaserUBreckenkampJNiermannU. Cost-effectiveness-analysis of medical interventions in patients with stroke in Germany under special consideration of “stroke units”. Gesundh ökon Qual Manag. 1999; 4: 176–83.
32.
SzucsTDGuggenbergerGBergerKMarzWSchaferJR. [Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of pravastatin in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in patients with average cholesterol levels. An analysis for Germany based on the CARE study]. Herz. 1998 Aug; 23 (5): 319–29.
33.
HollerDClaesCder SchulenburgJM. Treatment costs and quality of life of patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease—the German perspective. Vasa. 2004 Aug; 33 (3): 145–53.
34.
GhatnekarOWillisMPerssonU. Cost-effectiveness of treating deep diabetic foot ulcers with Promogran in four European countries. J Wound Care. 2002 Feb; 11 (2): 70–4.
35.
DahmenHG. [Diabetic foot syndrome and its risks: amputation, handicap, high-cost sequelae]. Gesundheitswesen. 1997 Oct; 59 (10): 566–8.
36.
SzucsTDSmalaAMFischerT. [Costs of intensive insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Experiences from the DCCT study]. Fortschr Med. 1998 Nov 10; 116 (31): 34–8.
37.
GozzoliVPalmerAJBrandtAWeissCPiehlmeierWLandgrafRRennerR. [Increased clinical and economic advantages using PROSIT (proteinuria screening and intervention) in type 2 diabetic patients]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2000 Sep 29; 125 (39): 1154–9.
38.
Gesundheitsbericht für Deutschland 1998. In: Statistisches Bundesamt, editor. Wiesbaden: Metzler-Poeschel (Stuttgart); 1998. p. 341–5.
39.
SalizeHJStammKSchubertMBergmannFHarterMBergerMGaebelWSchneiderF. [Cost of care for depressive disorders in primary and specialized care in Germany]. Psychiatr Prax. 2004 Apr; 31 (3): 147–56.
40.
RathmannWHaastertBGianiG. [Drug prescriptions and costs in diabetic polyneuropathy]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1999 Jun 4; 124 (22): 681–6.
41.
KöhlerAHessR. Kölner Kommentar zum EBM. 2nd ed.Köln: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag; 2002.
