4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Cost-Effectiveness of Lifestyle Modification in Diabetic Patients

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 32, 期 8, 页码 1453-1458

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0363

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To explore the potential long-term health and economic consequences of lifestyle interventions for diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A literature search was performed to identify interventions for diabetic patients in which lifestyle issues were addressed. We selected recent (2003-2008), randomized controlled trials With a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The long-term outcomes for these interventions, if implemented in the Dutch diabetic population, were simulated With a computer-based model. Costs and effects were discounted at, respectively, 4 and 1.5% annually. A lifelong time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, taking account of variability in intervention costs and (long-term) treatment effects. RESULTS - Seven trials with 147-5,145 participants met our predefined criteria. All interventions improved cardiovascular risk factors at >= 1 year follow-up and were projected to reduce cardiovascular morbidity over lifetime. The interventions resulted in an average gain of 0.01-0.14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per participant. Health benefits were generally achieved at reasonable costs (<=(sic)50,000/QALY). A self-management education program (X-PERT) and physical activity counseling achieved the best results with >= 0.10 QALYs gained and >= 99% probability to be very cost-effective (<=(sic)20,000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS - Implementation of lifestyle interventions would probably yield important health benefits at reasonable costs. However, essential evidence for long-term maintenance of health benefits was limited. Future research should be focused on long-term effectiveness and multiple treatment strategies should be compared to determine incremental costs and benefits of one over the other.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据