Cost-effectiveness of Community-Based Depression Interventions for Rural and Urban Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: Projections From Program ACTIVE (Adults Coming Together to Increase Vital Exercise) II

Autor: Kuo, Shihchen; Ye, Wen; de Groot, Mary; Saha, Chandan; Shubrook, Jay H.; Hornsby, W. Guyton; Pillay, Yegan; Mather, Kieren J.; Herman, William H.
Sprache: Englisch
Veröffentlicht: 2021
Quelle: PubMed Central (PMC)
Online Zugang: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7985429/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33608260
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc20-1639
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7985429/
https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-1639
Erfassungsnummer: ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:7985429

Zusammenfassung

OBJECTIVE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of the Program ACTIVE (Adults Coming Together to Increase Vital Exercise) II community-based exercise (EXER), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and EXER+CBT interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes and depression relative to usual care (UC) and each other. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were integrated into the Michigan Model for Diabetes to estimate cost and health outcomes over a 10-year simulation time horizon from the health care sector and societal perspectives, discounting costs and benefits at 3% annually. Primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: From the health care sector perspective, the EXER intervention strategy saved $313 (USD) per patient and produced 0.38 more QALY (cost saving), the CBT intervention strategy cost $596 more and gained 0.29 more QALY ($2,058/QALY), and the EXER+CBT intervention strategy cost $403 more and gained 0.69 more QALY ($585/QALY) compared with UC. Both EXER and EXER+CBT interventions dominated the CBT intervention. Compared with EXER, the EXER+CBT intervention strategy cost $716 more and gained 0.31 more QALY ($2,323/QALY). From the societal perspective, compared with UC, the EXER intervention strategy saved $126 (cost saving), the CBT intervention strategy cost $2,838/QALY, and the EXER+CBT intervention strategy cost $1,167/QALY. Both EXER and EXER+CBT interventions still dominated the CBT intervention. In comparison with EXER, the EXER+CBT intervention strategy cost $3,021/QALY. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: All three Program ACTIVE II interventions represented a good value for money compared with UC. The EXER+CBT intervention was highly cost-effective or cost saving compared with the CBT or EXER interventions.