22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Estimated effect of increased diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes and its associated cardiovascular risk factors among low-income and middle-income countries: a microsimulation model

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Given the increasing prevalence of diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), we aimed to estimate the health and cost implications of achieving different targets for diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes and its associated cardiovascular risk factors among LMICs.

          Methods

          We constructed a microsimulation model to estimate disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost and health-care costs of diagnosis, treatment, and control of blood pressure, dyslipidaemia, and glycaemia among people with diabetes in LMICs. We used individual participant data—specifically from the subset of people who were defined as having any type of diabetes by WHO standards—from nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys (2006–18) spanning 15 world regions to estimate the baseline 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (defined as fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke), heart failure (ejection fraction of <40%, with New York Heart Association class III or IV functional limitations), end-stage renal disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 or needing dialysis or transplant), retinopathy with severe vision loss (<20/200 visual acuity as measured by the Snellen chart), and neuropathy with pressure sensation loss (assessed by the Semmes-Weinstein 5·07/10 g monofilament exam). We then used data from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials to estimate the reduction in risk and the WHO OneHealth tool to estimate costs in reaching either 60% or 80% of diagnosis, treatment initiation, and control targets for blood pressure, dyslipidaemia, and glycaemia recommended by WHO guidelines. Costs were updated to 2020 International Dollars, and both costs and DALYs were computed over a 10-year policy planning time horizon at a 3% annual discount rate.

          Findings

          We obtained data from 23 678 people with diabetes from 67 countries. The median estimated 10-year risk was 10·0% (IQR 4·0–18·0) for cardiovascular events, 7·8% (5·1–11·8) for neuropathy with pressure sensation loss, 7·2% (5·6–9·4) for end-stage renal disease, 6·0% (4·2–8·6) for retinopathy with severe vision loss, and 2·6% (1·2–5·3) for congestive heart failure. A target of 80% diagnosis, 80% treatment, and 80% control would be expected to reduce DALYs lost from diabetes complications from a median population-weighted loss to 1097 DALYs per 1000 population over 10 years (IQR 1051–1155), relative to a baseline of 1161 DALYs, primarily from reduced cardiovascular events (down from a median of 143 to 117 DALYs per 1000 population) due to blood pressure and statin treatment, with comparatively little effect from glycaemic control. The target of 80% diagnosis, 80% treatment, and 80% control would be expected to produce an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$1362 per DALY averted (IQR 1304–1409), with the majority of decreased costs from reduced cardiovascular event management, counterbalanced by increased costs for blood pressure and statin treatment, producing an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1362 per DALY averted (IQR 1304–1409).

          Interpretation

          Reducing complications from diabetes in LMICs is likely to require a focus on scaling up blood pressure and statin medication treatment initiation and blood pressure medication titration rather than focusing on increasing screening to increase diabetes diagnosis, or a glycaemic treatment and control among people with diabetes.

          Funding

          None.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations inR

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020

            (2019)
            The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

              Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years. Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Glob Health
                Lancet Glob Health
                The Lancet. Global Health
                Elsevier Ltd
                2214-109X
                22 September 2021
                November 2021
                22 September 2021
                : 9
                : 11
                : e1539-e1552
                Affiliations
                [a ]Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [b ]Ariadne Labs, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                [c ]Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                [d ]School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK
                [e ]Research and Population Health, Collective Health, San Francisco, CA, USA
                [f ]Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [g ]Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Clinician Scholars Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
                [h ]Center for Indigenous Health Research, Wuqu' Kawoq, Tecpán, Guatemala
                [i ]Research Center for the Prevention of Chronic Diseases, Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama, Guatemala City, Guatemala
                [j ]Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
                [k ]Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University and University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
                [l ]Department of Economics and Center for Modern Indian Studies, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany
                [m ]Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut–Leibniz Institute for Economic Research, Essen, Germany
                [n ]Epidemiology Department, National Institute for Medical Research, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
                [o ]Office of Epidemiology and Surveillance, Costa Rican Social Security Fund, San José, Costa Rica
                [p ]Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                [q ]Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                [r ]Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                [s ]Togo Ministry of Health, Lome, Togo
                [t ]National Center for Public Health, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
                [u ]National Training School for Senior Technicians in Public Health and Epidemiological Surveillance (ENATSE), University of Parakou, Parakou, Benin
                [v ]Non-Communicable Diseases, Caribbean Public Health Agency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago
                [w ]Health Research and Epidemiology Unit, Ministry of Health, Thimphu, Bhutan
                [x ]The Fred Hollows Foundation, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [y ]Ministry of Health, Victoria, Seychelles
                [z ]Rector of the Univesidade Nacional Timor Lorosae, Dili, Timor-Leste
                [aa ]Africa Health Research Institute, Somkhele, South Africa
                [ab ]Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                [ac ]Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [ad ]Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [ae ]Centre for Global Surgery, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
                [af ]Medical Research Council–Wits University Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Sanjay Basu, Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA sanjay_basu@ 123456hms.harvard.edu
                [†]

                Co-senior authors

                Article
                S2214-109X(21)00340-5
                10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00340-5
                8526364
                34562369
                f7fe5c20-bbc9-4451-98c5-5984558c39de
                © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content32

                Cited by21

                Most referenced authors586