Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Diabetes Reports
Erschienen in: Current Diabetes Reports 7/2020

01.07.2020 | Economics and Policy in Diabetes (AA Baig and N Laiteerapong, Section Editors)

Economic Simulation Modeling in Type 2 Diabetes

verfasst von: Rahul S. Dadwani, Neda Laiteerapong

Erschienen in: Current Diabetes Reports | Ausgabe 7/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This paper provides an overview of type 2 diabetes economic simulation modeling and reviews current topics of discussion and major challenges in the field.

Recent Findings

Important challenges in the field include increasing the generalizability of models and improving transparency in model reporting. To identify and address these issues, modeling groups have organized through the Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge meetings and developed tools (i.e., checklist, impact inventory) to standardize modeling methods and reporting of results. Accordingly, many newer diabetes models have begun utilizing these tools, allowing for improved comparability between diabetes models.

Summary

In the last two decades, type 2 diabetes simulation models have improved considerably, due to the collaborative work performed through the Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge meetings. To continue to improve diabetes models, future work must focus on clarifying diabetes progression in racial/ethnic minorities and incorporating equity considerations into health economic analysis.
Literatur
1.
Robinson S. Modes of simulation practice: approaches to business and military simulation. Simul Model Pract Theory. 2002 Dec 31;10(8):513–23.CrossRef
2.
Fone D, Hollinghurst S, Temple M, Round A, Lester N, Weightman A, et al. Systematic review of the use and value of computer simulation modelling in population health and health care delivery. J Public Health (Oxf). 2003 Dec 1;25(4):325–35.CrossRef
3.
Association AD. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care. 2018:dci180007.
4.
Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HAW, Matthews DR, Manley SE, Cull CA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000 Aug 12;321(7258):405–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Harris MI, Klein R, Welborn TA, Knuiman MW. Onset of NIDDM occurs at least 4-7 yr before clinical diagnosis. Diabetes Care. 1992 Jul 1;15(7):815–9.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Brown JB, Palmer AJ, Bisgaard P, Chan W, Pedula K, Russell A. The Mt. Hood challenge: cross-testing two diabetes simulation models. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000 Nov 1;50:S57–64.PubMedCrossRef
7.
8.
Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Zbrozek AS, Dong F, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM. I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care. 1997 May;20(5):725–34.PubMedCrossRef
9.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Lifetime benefits and costs of intensive therapy as practiced in the diabetes control and complications trial. JAMA. 1996;276(17):1409–15.
10.
Yeo WW, Yeo KR. Predicting CHD risk in patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2001 May;18(5):341–4.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Song SH, Brown PM. Coronary heart disease risk assessment in diabetes mellitus: comparison of UKPDS risk engine with Framingham risk assessment function and its clinical implications. Diabet Med. 2004 Mar;21(3):238–45.PubMedCrossRef
12.
McEwan P, Williams JE, Griffiths JD, Bagust A, Peters JR, Hopkinson P, et al. Evaluating the performance of the Framingham risk equations in a population with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2004 Apr;21(4):318–23.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Farmer AJ, Fenn P, Stevens RJ, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia. 2004 Oct;47(10):1747–59.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Bagust A, Hopkinson PK, Maier W, Currie CJ. An economic model of the long-term health care burden of type II diabetes. Diabetologia. 2001 Dec 1;44(12):2140–55.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Palmer AJ, Brandt A, Gozzoli V, Weiss C, Stock H, Wenzel H. Outline of a diabetes disease management model: principles and applications. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000 Nov 1;50:S47–56.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Eddy DM, Schlessinger L. Validation of the archimedes diabetes model. Diabetes Care. 2003 Nov;26(11):3102–10.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Group TCDC. Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2002;287(19):2542–51.CrossRef
18.
Brown JB, Russell A, Chan W, Pedula K, Aickin M. The global diabetes model: user friendly version 3.0. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000 Nov 1;50:S15–46.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Govan L, Wu O, Lindsay R, Briggs A. How do diabetes models measure up? A review of diabetes economic models and ADA guidelines. JHEOR. 2015;3(2):132–52.CrossRef
20.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). VIII. Study design, progress and performance. Diabetologia. 1991;34(12):877–90.CrossRef
21.
Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HAW. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 9;359(15):1577–89.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Kahn R. Dealing with complexity in clinical diabetes: the value of Archimedes. Diabetes Care. 2003 Nov 1;26(11):3168–71.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Association AD. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007 Jun 1;30(6):1638–46.CrossRef
24.
Hornberger J. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fifth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Value Health. 2013 Jun 1;16(4):453–4.PubMedCrossRef
25.
•• Palmer AJ, Si L, Tew M, Hua X, Willis MS, Asseburg C, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its transparency: a report on the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge. Value Health. 2018;21(6):724–31 This Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge meeting focused on improving transparency in diabetes modeling and lead to the creation of a standardized checklist. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996 Oct 9;276(14):1172–1177.
27.
Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093–103.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. 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. Value Health. 2013 Mar 1;16(2):231–50.PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
31.
American Diabetes Association Consensus Panel. Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes Care. 2004 Sep 1;27(9):2262–5.CrossRef
32.
•• Kent S, Becker F, Feenstra T, Tran-Duy A, Schlackow I, Tew M, et al. The challenge of transparency and validation in health economic decision modelling: a view from Mount Hood. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(11):1305–12 This describes the creation of the Diabetes Model database and reporting of a reference simulation on the Mount Hood Challenge Network website.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Baxter M, Hudson R, Mahon J, Bartlett C, Samyshkin Y, Alexiou D, et al. Estimating the impact of better management of glycaemic control in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes on the number of clinical complications and the associated financial benefit. Diabet Med. 2016;33(11):1575–81.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Stevens RJ, Matthews DR, Holman RR, et al. Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72). Diabetologia. 2005 May 1;48(5):868–77.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
Rees A, Paisley S, Brazier J, Cantrell A, Poku E, Williams K. PRM32 - development of the Scharr HUD (health utilities database). Value Health. 2013 Nov 1;16(7):A580.CrossRef
37.
Ridyard CH, Hughes DA. Development of a database of instruments for resource-use measurement: purpose, feasibility, and design. Value Health. 2012;15(5):650–5.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Sep 5;11(1):151.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Schramm W, Sailer F, Pobiruchin M, Weiss C. PROSIT open source disease models for diabetes mellitus. Studies Health Technol Informat. 2016;226:115–8.
40.
Smolen HJ, Murphy DR, Gahn JC, Yu X, Curtis BH. The evaluation of clinical and cost outcomes associated with earlier initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. JMCP. 2014 Sep;20(9):968–84.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Curtis BH, Curtis S, Murphy DR, Gahn JC, Perk S, Smolen HJ, et al. Evaluation of a patient self-directed mealtime insulin titration algorithm: a US payer perspective. J Med Econ. 2016 Jun 2;19(6):549–56.PubMedCrossRef
42.
van der Heijden AAWA, Feenstra TL, Hoogenveen RT, Niessen LW, de Bruijne MC, Dekker JM, et al. Policy evaluation in diabetes prevention and treatment using a population-based macro simulation model: the MICADO model. Diabet Med. 2015;32(12):1580–7.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Ye W, Brandle M, Brown MB, Herman WH. The Michigan model for coronary Heart disease in type 2 diabetes: development and validation. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17:701–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Zhou H, Isaman DJM, Messinger S, Brown MB, Klein R, Brandle M, et al. A computer simulation model of diabetes progression, quality of life, and cost. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:2856–63.
45.
Breeze P, Squires H, Chilcott J, Stride C, Diggle PJ, Brunner E, et al. A statistical model to describe longitudinal and correlated metabolic risk factors: the Whitehall II prospective study. J Public Health (Oxf). 2016 Dec 2;38(4):679–87.CrossRef
46.
Thomas C, Watson P, Squires H, Chilcott J, Brennan A. PRM74 - validation of the SPHR diabetes prevention model. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A556.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Nagy B, Zsólyom A, Nagyjánosi L, Merész G, Steiner T, Papp E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a risk-based secondary screening programme of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32(7):710–29.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Zsólyom A, Merész G, Nagyjánosi L, Nagyistók S, Nagy B, Kaló Z, et al. External validation of the Syreon diabetes model. Value Health. 2013 Nov 1;16(7):A590.CrossRef
49.
50.
Kazemian P, Wexler DJ, Fields NF, Parker RA, Zheng A, Walensky RP. Development and validation of PREDICT-DM: a new microsimulation model to project and evaluate complications and treatments of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 May 22;21(6):344–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Su ZT, Bartelt-Hofer J, Brown S, Lew E, Sauriol L, Annemans L, et al. The use of computer simulation modeling to estimate complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: comparative validation of the cornerstone diabetes simulation model. PharmacoEconomics Open [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jan 17];4:37–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41669-019-0156-x.CrossRef
52.
Leal J, Hayes AJ, Gray AM, Holman RR, Clarke PM. Temporal validation of the UKPDS outcomes model using 10-year posttrial monitoring data. Diabetes Care. 2013 Jun;36(6):1541–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
54.
Mah CA, Soumerai SB, Adams AS, Ross-Degnan D. Racial differences in impact of coverage on diabetes self-monitoring in a health maintenance organization. Med Care. 2006 May;44(5):392–7.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Wailoo A, Tsuchiya A, McCabe C. Weighting must wait. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009 Dec 1;27(12):983–9.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Cookson R, Drummond M, Weatherly H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Economics, Policy Law. 2009 Apr;4(2):231–45.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Economic Simulation Modeling in Type 2 Diabetes
verfasst von
Rahul S. Dadwani
Neda Laiteerapong
Publikationsdatum
01.07.2020
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Diabetes Reports / Ausgabe 7/2020
Print ISSN: 1534-4827
Elektronische ISSN: 1539-0829
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-020-01306-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2020

Current Diabetes Reports 7/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Psychosocial Aspects (SS Jaser, Section Editor)

Using Person-Reported Outcomes (PROs) to Motivate Young People with Diabetes

Correction

Correction to: “H” for Heterogeneity in the Algorithm for Type 2 Diabetes Management

Other Forms of Diabetes and Its Complications (JJ Nolan and H Thabit, Section Editors)

Euglycemic Ketoacidosis

Obesity (KM Gadde and P Singh, Section Editors)

CNS Regulation of Glucose Homeostasis: Role of the Leptin-Melanocortin System

Immunology, Transplantation, and Regenerative Medicine (L Piemonti and V Sordi, Section Editors)

Updates on Gene Therapy for Diabetic Retinopathy

Obesity (KM Gadde and P Singh, Section Editors)

Gastrointestinal Peptides as Therapeutic Targets to Mitigate Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren. 

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

01.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Mit dem demographischen Wandel versorgt auch die Chirurgie immer mehr betagte Menschen. Von Entwicklungen wie Fast-Track können auch ältere Menschen profitieren und bei proximaler Humerusfraktur können selbst manche 100-Jährige noch sicher operiert werden.

Die „Zehn Gebote“ des Endokarditis-Managements

30.04.2024 Endokarditis Leitlinie kompakt

Worauf kommt es beim Management von Personen mit infektiöser Endokarditis an? Eine Kardiologin und ein Kardiologe fassen die zehn wichtigsten Punkte der neuen ESC-Leitlinie zusammen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise