Search

Aim: Forty percent of hypertensive type 2 diabetes patients develop nephropathy (microalbuminuria/overt nephropathy), indicating end organ damage, increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and death. In France, screening rates and nephropathy treatment are suboptimal. We assessed the health economic impact of nephropathy screening in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes followed by optimal antihypertensive/nephroprotective therapy in those who have nephropathy in France., Methods: A Markov/Monte Carlo model simulated lifetime impacts of screening for albuminuria (microalbuminuria/overt nephropathy) using semi-quantitative urine dipsticks in a primary care setting, and subsequent addition of irbesartan 300 mg to conventional therapy in hypertensive type 2 diabetes patients identified as having nephropathy. Progression from no renal disease to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was simulated. Probabilities, utilities and costs of CVD events, medications and ESRD treatment came from published sources. Cumulative incidence of ESRD, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct costs were projected. Second-order Monte Carlo simulation accounted for uncertainty in multiple parameters. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually., Results: Screening and optimized treatment led to a 42% reduction in the cumulative incidence of ESRD from 10.1 +/- 9.9% without screening to 5.8 +/- 5.7%, improvements in life expectancy of 0.38 +/- 0.59 years, improvements of 0.29 +/- 0.32 QALYs, and decreased costs of Euro 4,812 +/- 7,882/patient over 25 years. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust. Screening was most beneficial when performed in younger patients., Conclusion: In hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, screening for albuminuria followed by optimal antihypertensive/nephroprotective treatment improves patient outcomes and leads to cost savings in France.

Objectives: To provide a comprehensive source document on previously published cost data for diabetic complications in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain for use in a peer-reviewed, validated diabetes model., Methods: A search for published cost of diabetes complications data was performed in peer-reviewed journals listed in PubMed and health economic conference proceedings from 1994 to March 2005. Where country specific data were not available, we referred to government websites and local cost experts. All costs were inflated to 2003 Euros (E). Major complication costs are presented., Results: First year costs of non-fatal myocardial infarction varied between E19277 in Spain and E12292 in Australia. In subsequent years of treatment, this range was E1226 (France) to E203 (Australia). Angina costs were similar across all four countries: E1716 in Australia; E2218 in Canada; E2613 in France; E3342 in Germany; E2297 in Italy; and E2207 in Spain. Event costs of non-fatal stroke were higher in Canada (E23173) than in other countries (Australia E13443; France E11754; Germany E19399; Italy E6583; Spain E4638). Event costs of end-stage renal disease varied depending on the type of dialysis: in Australia (E17188-27552); Canada (E33811-58159); France (E24608-56487); Germany (E46296-68175); Italy (E43075-56717); and Spain (E28370-32706). Lower extremity amputation costs were: E18547 (Australia); E17130 (Canada); E31998 (France); E22096 (Germany); E10177 (Italy); and E14787 (Spain)., Conclusions: Overall, our search showed costs are well documented in Australia, Canada, France and Germany, but revealed a paucity of data for Spain and Italy. Spanish costs, collected by contacting local experts and from government reports, generally appeared to be lower for treating cardiovascular complications than in other countries. Italian costs reported in the literature were primarily hospitalization costs derived from diagnosis-related groups, and therefore likely to misrepresent the cost of specific complications. Additional research is required to document complication costs in Spain and Italy. Australian and German values were collected primarily by referring to diagnostic related group (DRG) tariffs and, as a result, there may be a need for future economic evaluations measuring the accuracy of the costs and resource utilization in the reported values. These cost data are essential to create models of diabetes that are able to accurately simulate the cumulative costs associated with the progression of the disease and its complications.

Background: In the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT), treatment with irbesartan demonstrated 23 and 20% reductions in the combined endpoint of doubling of serum creatinine (DSC), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy compared with amlodipine and control, respectively. A simulation model was developed to project long-term cost consequences of the IDNT in Belgium and France., Methods: A Markov model simulated progression from nephropathy to DSC, ESRD and death in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Treatment-specific probabilities were derived from IDNT. Country-specific ESRD-related data were retrieved from published sources. Delay in onset of ESRD, life expectancy and mean lifetime costs were calculated for patients with a baseline age of 59 years. Future costs were discounted at 3% per annum (p.a.), and clinical benefits were discounted at 0 and 3% p.a. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Onset of ESRD was delayed with irbesartan by 1.41 and 1.35 years vs amlodipine and control, respectively. When a 10-year time horizon was considered, delay in ESRD onset led to anticipated improvements in life expectancy of 0.13 years vs amlodipine and 0.26 years vs control. Irbesartan was associated with cost savings of 14 949 and 9205/patient in Belgium, and 20 128 and 13 337 in France, vs amlodipine and control, respectively. The results were robust under a wide range of plausible assumptions., Conclusions: Treating patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy using irbesartan was both cost- and life-saving compared with amlodipine and control.