Back to list

Conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of type 2 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: can locally generated observational study data overcome methodological limitations?

SeiHyun Baik a, Antônio Roberto Chacra b, Li Yuxiu c, Jeremy White d * , Serdar Güler e and Zafar A. Latif f

Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Supplement 1, Volume 88, pages S17 - S22

Published online Dec-2010


Article view:

Abstract

In low- and middle-income countries, the high personal and economic burden of type 2 diabetes is further compounded by inadequate resources for diabetes care when compared with high-income countries. Health technology assessments (HTAs) aim to inform policy decision makers in their efforts to achieve more effective allocation of resources by providing evidence-based input on new technologies. Within the hierarchy of evidence, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the ‘gold standard’ used to inform HTAs, but are limited by poor external validity (ie, generalizability to real-world populations). Unlike RCTs, observational studies are able to enrol broader patient populations, but their design renders such studies vulnerable to confounding factors and selection bias. However, it is increasingly recognized that observational studies can complement RCTs by supporting and extending efficacy findings from RCTs to real-world clinical practice, particularly across geographical populations. They can also provide locally relevant baseline and disease natural history data to populate health economic models. Thus, observational data are likely to be of considerable informative value to policy makers in developing countries reaching decisions on diabetes care within an environment of scarce resources.

Keywords: Type 2 diabetes, Health economic models, Observational studies, Cost-effectiveness analyses.


Article Outline

References

  • 1 International Diabetes Federation. 2009. http://www.idf.org/new-international-diabetes-federation-study-reveals-people-developing-countries-pay-more-diabetes-ca (accessed Nov, 2009).
  • 2 A Arredondo, A Zuniga. Economic consequences of epidemiological changes in diabetes in middle-income countries. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:104-109 Crossref.
  • 3 N Unwin, KG Alberti. Chronic non-communicable diseases. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol.. 2006;100:455-464 Crossref.
  • 4 DO Abegunde, CD Mathers, T Adam, M Ortegon, K Strong. The burden and costs of chronic diseases in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet. 2007;370:1929-1938 Crossref.
  • 5 G Roglic, N Unwin. Mortality attributable to diabetes: Estimates for the year 2010. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract.. 2010;87:15-19 Crossref.
  • 6 O Adeyi, O Smith, S Robles. Improving NCD outcomes: A public policy perspective. ‘Public policy and the challenge of chronic noncommunicable diseases’. Part 976 (World Bank, Washington DC, 2007)
  • 7 A Ringborg, C Cropet, B Jonsson, JJ Gagliardino, A Ramachandran, P Lindgren. Resource use associated with type 2 diabetes in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa: results from the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS). Int. J. Clin. Pract.. 2009;63:997-1007 Crossref.
  • 8 A Bagust, PK Hopkinson, W Maier, CJ Currie. An economic model of the long-term health care burden of type II diabetes. Diabetologia. 2001;44:2140-2155 Crossref.
  • 9 JM Bottomley, FD Raymond. Pharmaco-economic issues for diabetes therapy. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.. 2007;21:657-685 Crossref.
  • 10 MV Garrido, FB Kristensen, CP Nielsen, R Busse. Health technology assessment and health policy making in Europe. Current status, challenges and potential. World Health Organization on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E91922.pdf (2008)
  • 11 A Scott, N Currie, C Donaldson. Evaluating innovation in general practice: a pragmatic framework using programme budgeting and marginal analysis. Family Practice. 1998;15:216-222 Crossref.
  • 12 S Banerjee, K Tran, H Li, K Cimon, D Daneman, S Simpson, et al. Short-acting insulin analogues for diabetes mellitus: meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and assessment of costeffectiveness [Technology Report no 87] (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, 2007)
  • 13 JM Kirigia, HB Sambo, LG Sambo, SP Barry. Economic burden of diabetes mellitus in the WHO African region. BMC Int. Health Hum. Rights. 2009;9:6 Crossref.
  • 14 World Health Organization. CHOosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE). Available at: http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_thresholds/en/index.html (2009)
  • 15 B-M Yang. The future of healthcare technology assessment in healthcare decision making in Asia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:891-901 Crossref.
  • 16 N Freemantle, F Hessel. The applicability and generalizability of findings from clinical trials for health-policy decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:5-10 Crossref.
  • 17 MF Drummond, D Grima. Multinational economic studies: Lessons learned from trial-based and modelling studies. Value in Health. 2008;4:192
  • 18 SL Silverman. From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Am. J. Med.. 2009;122:114-120 Crossref.
  • 19 MF Drummond. Experimental versus Observational Data in the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Med. Decis. Making. 1998;18:S12-S18 Crossref.
  • 20 S Dixon, JR Peters. Evaluating the ‘real’ costeffectiveness of health technology: reconciling the public interest with patients' interests. Curr. Med. Res. Opin.. 2007;23:S1-S6 Crossref.
  • 21 MF Drummond. Making economic evaluations more accessible to healthcare decision-makers. Eur. J. Health Econ.. 2003;4:246-247
  • 22 KT Khaw, N Day, S Bingham, N Wareham. Observational versus randomized trial evidence. Lancet. 2004;364:753-754 Crossref.
  • 23 DA Lawlor, G Davey Smith, D Kundu, KR Bruckdorfer, S Ebrahim. Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence?. Lancet. 2004;363:1723-1727
  • 24 D Coyle, KM Lee, BJ O'Brien. The role of models within economic analysis focus on type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20:11-19 Crossref.
  • 25 BC Reeves. Limitations of analyses of effectiveness using observational data. Eur. Heart J.. 2006;27:1642-1643 Crossref.
  • 26 KH Lee, SJ Seo, J Smith-Palmer, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Switching to Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 from Human Insulin in Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes in South Korea. Value in Health. 2009;12:S55-S61 Crossref.
  • 27 MV Garrido, S Mangiapane. Surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment: An international comparison. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care. 2009;25:315-322 Crossref.
  • 28 RS Taylor, J Elston. The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports. Health Technol. Assess.. 2009;13:1-88
  • 29 MJ Sculpher, FS Pang, A Manca, MF Drummond, S Golder, H Urdahl, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol. Assess.. 2004;8:1-213
  • 30 MF Drummond, A Manca, M Sculpher. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 2005;21:165-171
  • 31 R Baltussen, R Leidl, A Ament. Real world designs in economic evaluation. Bridging the gap between clinical research and policy-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;16(5 Pt 1):449-458 Crossref.
  • 32 AM Gray, P Clarke. The economic analyses of the UK prospective diabetes study. Diabet. Med.. 2008;25:47-51 Crossref.
  • 33 JL Palmer, M Gibbs, HW Scheijbeler, RW Kotchie, S Nielsen, J White, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Switching to Biphasic Insulin Aspart in Poorly-Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Patients in China. Adv. Ther.. 2008;25:752-774 Crossref.
  • 34 KN Eggleston, ND Shah, SA Smith, AE Wagie, AR Williams, JH Grossman, et al. The net value of health care for patients with type 2 diabetes, 1997 to 2005. Ann. Intern. Med.. 2009;151:386-393 Crossref.
  • 35 The Mount Hood 4 Modeling Group. Computer modelling of diabetes and its complications. A report on the fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1638-1646 Crossref.
  • 36 DM Eddy, L Schlessinger. Validation of the archimedes diabetes model. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:3102-3110 Crossref.

Footnotes

a Division of Endocrinology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea

b Endocrine Division and Diabetes Center at the Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

c Department of Endocrinology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China

d Novo Nordisk Region International Operations A/S, Zurich, Switzerland

e Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

f Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation for Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders (BIRDEM), Dhaka, Bangladesh

* Correspondence to: Jeremy White, Novo Nordisk Region International Operations A/S, Zurich, Switzerland

Back to list