Cost effectiveness of an intensive blood glucose control policy in patients with type 2 diabetes: economic analysis alongside randomised controlled trial (UKPDS 41)BMJ 2000; 320 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1373 (Published 20 May 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;320:1373
- Centres of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group are listed on the BMJ’s website
Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford; Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen; Birmingham General Hospital; St George's Hospital, London; Hammersmith Hospital, London; Belfast City Hospital; North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, Stoke on Trent; Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast; St Helier Hospital, Carshalton; Whittington Hospital, London; Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, Norwich; Lister Hospital, Stevenage; Ipswich Hospital; Ninewells Hospital, Dundee; Northampton Hospital; Torbay Hospital; Peterborough General Hospital; Scarborough Hospital; Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Derby; Manchester Royal Infirmary; Hope Hospital, Salford; Leicester General Hospital; Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter.
Testing the model validity
The validity of the model was examined in two ways. Firstly, a separate model was built for each of the end points. Each of these models was validated individually and then combined into a single competing risks model. Estimates of time to first event from this model were found to agree to the second decimal place with those from the twofold model. Secondly, a form of temporal cross validation was used. The twofold model was refitted to the trial data using only the first 12 years of follow up. Figure w1 compares predictions made by this submodel for years 13-19 with survival probabilities observed within the trial. The success of this submodel, based on 12 years of data, at extrapolation over a further six years, suggests that the full model can accurately project beyond the trial follow up period.
Comparison of observed (life table) survival function with estimates from a cross validation submodel
Secondary comparisons of the mean cost per patient in the conventional policy group compared with the insulin treated and sulphonylurea treated groups separately showed no significant differences. Patients in the intensive policy group who were randomised to insulin had mean trial costs of £7371 compared with £7170 in the conventional group, a non-significant difference of £202 (- £413 to £816) in favour of the conventional group. In a non-trial setting this difference becomes £603 (- £5 to £1210) in favour of the conventional group. Patients in the intensive policy arm who were randomised to sulphonylurea had mean trial costs of £6654 compared with £7170 in the conventional group, a difference of £515 (- £59 to 1089) in favour of the intensive group. In a non-trial setting this difference becomes £143 (- £426 to £712) in favour of the intensive group.
The difference in mean total trial costs per patient between the insulin treated and sulphonylurea treated groups was £717 (£273 to £1161) in favour of the sulphonylurea group (P=0.002). This difference was entirely attributable to the higher costs of insulin treatment, including drugs and blood glucose tests, with no significant differences in the costs of complications. In a non-trial setting, there was a difference of £459 (£22 to £896) in favour of sulphonylurea (P=0.039).
We also compared the costs for patients randomly allocated to chlorpropamide with those randomly allocated to glibenclamide. Treatment costs were significantly lower in the chlorpropamide group (mean difference £197, £7 to £387), but there were no significant differences in complication costs or in total costs.
- Communicating risk to patients in the emergency departmentBMJ December 05, 2016, 355 i6437; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6437
- Biological treatment is approved for severe eosinophilic asthmaBMJ December 01, 2016, 355 i6472; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6472
- Patient care is at risk from lack of new funds in autumn statement, healthcare leaders warnBMJ November 24, 2016, 355 i6356; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6356
- Government must be clearer in its claims about NHS funding, says statistics watchdogBMJ November 24, 2016, 355 i6340; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6340
- US must address addiction as an illness, not as a moral failing, Surgeon General saysBMJ November 22, 2016, 355 i6265; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6265
- Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Manage Diabetes: Has the Evidence Changed Since 2008?
- How good are GPs at adhering to a pragmatic trial protocol in primary care? Results from the ADDITION-Cambridge cluster-randomised pragmatic trial
- Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions Designed to Improve Glycemic Control in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Weighted Regression Analysis
- Five-Year Cost-effectiveness of the Multidisciplinary Risk Assessment and Management Programme-Diabetes Mellitus (RAMP-DM)
- Glycemic Control for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Our Evolving Faith in the Face of Evidence
- Identifying strategies to improve diabetes care in Alberta, Canada, using the knowledge-to-action cycle
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Genetic Medicine: The case of genetic testing in neonatal diabetes
- Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Prevent and Control Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of the Diabetes Care Protocol, a Multifaceted Computerized Decision Support Diabetes Management Intervention That Reduces Cardiovascular Risk
- Shifting the Disease Management Paradigm From Glucose: What are the cons?
- Counterpoint: A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT): Good for Sulfonylureas?
- Is Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Appropriate for All Type 2 Diabetic Patients?: The Fremantle Diabetes Study
- Point: Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetic Patients not Receiving Insulin: The sanguine approach
- Intensive Integrated Therapy of Type 2 Diabetes: Implications for Long-Term Prognosis
- Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated With an Intervention to Enhance Quality of Care for Rural Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a controlled trial
- Pharmacy Costs and Glycemic Control in the Department of Veterans Affairs
- Prevention of Obesity and Diabetes
- Controlled Trial of a Multifaceted Intervention for Improving Quality of Care for Rural Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Resistance Exercise Training to Improve Glycemic Control in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
- Implementing intensive control of blood glucose concentration and blood pressure in type 2 diabetes in England: cost analysis (UKPDS 63)
- Task Force #2--the cost of prevention: can we afford it? Can we afford not to do it?
- Does Diabetes Disease Management Save Money and Improve Outcomes? : A report of simultaneous short-term savings and quality improvement associated with a health maintenance organization-sponsored disease management program among patients fulfilling health employer data and information set criteria
- Blood pressure control and diabetic retinopathy
- Lifetime Costs of Complications Resulting From Type 2 Diabetes in the U.S.
- Management of diabetes: are doctors framing the benefits from the wrong perspective?
- Epidemiology, Costs, Consequences, and Pathophysiology of Type 2 Diabetes: An American Epidemic
- Diabetes Prevention: How About NOW?