Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Study Protocol
  • Open Access

Rationale and protocol for estimating the economic value of a multicomponent quality improvement strategy for diabetes care in South Asia

  • 1, 16Email authorView ORCID ID profile,
  • 2,
  • 1, 16,
  • 16,
  • 1, 16,
  • 1, 16,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 5,
  • 6,
  • 7,
  • 8,
  • 9,
  • 10,
  • 11,
  • 12, 16, 17,
  • 13,
  • 14,
  • 15 and
Global Health Research and Policy20194:7

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-019-0099-x

  • Received: 15 January 2019
  • Accepted: 5 March 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Economic dimensions of implementing quality improvement for diabetes care are understudied worldwide. We describe the economic evaluation protocol within a randomised controlled trial that tested a multi-component quality improvement (QI) strategy for individuals with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes in South Asia.

Methods/design

This economic evaluation of the Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia (CARRS) randomised trial involved 1146 people with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes receiving care at 10 diverse diabetes clinics across India and Pakistan. The economic evaluation comprises both a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (mean 2.5 years follow up) and a microsimulation model-based cost-utility analysis (life-time horizon). Effectiveness measures include multiple risk factor control (achieving HbA1c < 7% and blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg and/or LDL-cholesterol< 100 mg/dl), and patient reported outcomes including quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-3 L, hospitalizations, and diabetes related complications at the trial end. Cost measures include direct medical and non-medical costs relevant to outpatient care (consultation fee, medicines, laboratory tests, supplies, food, and escort/accompanying person costs, transport) and inpatient care (hospitalization, transport, and accompanying person costs) of the intervention compared to usual diabetes care. Patient, healthcare system, and societal perspectives will be applied for costing. Both cost and health effects will be discounted at 3% per year for within trial cost-effectiveness analysis over 2.5 years and decision modelling analysis over a lifetime horizon. Outcomes will be reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to achieve multiple risk factor control, avoid diabetes-related complications, or QALYs gained against varying levels of willingness to pay threshold values. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess uncertainties around ICER estimates by varying costs (95% CIs) across public vs. private settings and using conservative estimates of effect size (95% CIs) for multiple risk factor control. Costs will be reported in US$ 2018.

Discussion

We hypothesize that the additional upfront costs of delivering the intervention will be counterbalanced by improvements in clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes, thereby rendering this multi-component QI intervention cost-effective in resource constrained South Asian settings.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01212328.

Keywords

  • Economic evaluation
  • Diabetes care
  • Multicomponent strategy
  • Quality improvement
  • South Asia

Background

Diabetes is one of the fastest growing public health problems with huge financial burdens. The global costs of diabetes were US$ 1.31 trillion (1.8% of global GDP) in 2015 [1]. A 2018 systematic review found that annual costs of diabetes care (out of pocket medical expenditure) in South Asia ranged between US$ 575 to US $1216 per person [2]. Diabetes is a progressive disease which requires increasingly more clinic visits, laboratory tests, and patients need to engage with the healthcare system and providers over years for better management of diabetes which can arrest disease progression. However, current chronic care for diabetes is sub-optimal, costly, and lower socioeconomic status or uninsured individuals may be more likely to experience poor control [37].

Several barriers at the patient- (e.g., low motivation, financial barriers), provider- (e.g., inertia to intensify treatments), and system-level (e.g., complicated and/or fragmented care system), individually or together, cause patient and system “fatigue” and disrupt achievement of diabetes care goals [810]. In the Centre for Cardio-metabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia (CARRS) Trial, we targeted different levels of barriers together (e.g., patient motivation and provider inertia) [9, 11] and demonstrated sustainable and larger improvements in outcomes and satisfaction for people with diabetes with a multicomponent strategy of decision support-electronic health records (DS-EHR) and non-physician care coordinators (CC), compared to usual diabetes care [12].

However, enhancements or changes to the status quo of care delivery come at a cost, and in order to formulate useful recommendations for practicing clinicians, health systems, payers (health insurance, governments, patients paying out-of-pocket), and policymakers, there is an imperative to assess the value of investing in quality improvement (QI) care models. Knowing the upfront costs is also necessary to guide decision makers as they consider implementation of QI interventions in clinical care.

A 2018 systematic review of economic evaluations of QI interventions for glycaemic control among adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes from high income countries found that multifaceted QI interventions that lower HbA1c was good value for money versus usual care, depending on society’s willingness to pay [13]. However, in our review of cost-effectiveness of interventions to control cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus, we found a scarcity of cost-effectiveness studies related to QI interventions for diabetes care in South Asia [14]. Here, we describe the economic evaluation protocol to assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness and broader societal value of the CARRS diabetes care model consisting of DS-EHR and non-physician CCs compared to usual diabetes care.

Methods/Design of Economic Evaluation

Overview

The objectives of the economic evaluation are to assess: a) the incremental cost of delivering multicomponent QI interventions compared to usual diabetes care in tertiary care settings over a period of 2.5 years; b) whether the intervention provides value for money (cost-effectiveness) to patients, healthcare systems and society than usual care, and if so; c) the extent of uncertainty over the cost-effectiveness of the intervention and value of conducting further research to reduce this uncertainty.

The CARRS Trial’s economic evaluation will follow standard international methodological guidelines [1518]. Given, more than 80% of medical expenses in India and Pakistan are out-of-pocket expenditures borne by the patient, we will apply the patient viewpoint as the predominant perspective, in addition to healthcare system and societal perspectives for costing resource use. Cost data will be reported in 2018 United States Dollars (US$). Both cost and health effects will be discounted at 3% per year as per the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines for conducting economic evaluations in developing countries.

The CARRS trial and study population

The CARRS Trial randomised 1146 eligible patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c > 8% and SBP > 140 mmHg or LDLc> 130 mg/dl) to intervention (n = 575) or usual care (n = 571) across 10 diverse diabetes clinics in India and Pakistan. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 54 years, 45% were males, mean HbA1c was 9.9%, LDLc 123.2 mg/dl, BP 144.2/82.3 mmHg, and median duration of diabetes was 7 years [12].

Intervention and comparator

Detailed information about the CARRS-Trial intervention and protocol has been published previously [19]. Briefly, the CARRS intervention consisted of DS-EHRs to enhance physicians’ responsiveness to consider treatment modification and non-physician CCs to support patients in their adherence to prescribed therapies. The DS-EHR stored all consultation, laboratory, self-care, and diabetes related complications data for patients in one easily accessible web portal to monitor patient progress; and provided decision-support system (DSS) prompts to facilitate achievement of guideline-recommended glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid goals. The CCs fully managed the DS-EHR data-entry for intervention group participants and all communication of DSS prompts to the physician during consultations via print-out or electronic display. Physicians could, at their discretion, accept or reject DSS prompts and modify treatment plans based on clinical judgment, so long as justification was provided.

The intervention was compared with usual diabetes care at nine clinics/hospitals across India and one site in Pakistan. Figure 1 demonstrates the study flow.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Study flow - Economic evaluation alongside CARRS Trial. Abbreviations: CARRS=Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia), DS-EHR = decision-support electronic health records; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin, BP = blood pressure, SBP = systolic blood pressure, LDLc = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, EQ5D-3 L = European quality of life 5 dimension 3 levels; mg/dl = milligrams per deciliter, mmHg = millimeter of mercury

Effectiveness measures

To evaluate incremental effectiveness, we will compare the proportions of intervention and control arm participants achieving multiple risk factor control defined as HbA1c < 7% and BP < 130/80 mmHg or LDLc< 100 mg/dl (and < 70 mg/dl for those with history of cardiovascular disease). Data on health-related quality of life (EQ5D-3 L); new-onset cardiovascular events, new onset microvascular events, and other hospitalizations would also be used.

The CARRS Trial is currently ongoing and we will project cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes using proxy indicators (intermediate risk factors: HbA1c, BP, LDLc). Relative risk reductions for major adverse cardiovascular events with intervention or comparator will also be calculated separately for each participant, using United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Models 2 which has been validated for use in South Asians [20]. Table 1 summarizes the study outcomes (effectiveness measures) to be considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
Table 1

Overview of the effectiveness measures

Measure

Means of collection

Timing of collection

Source of data

Multiple risk factor control (HbA1c < 7% and BP < 130/80 mmHg or LDLc< 100 mg/dl)

Blood test + BP measurement using digital BP monitor

Baseline: Prior to intervention deliveryFollow-up: Annual visits post intervention delivery

Trial eCRF (Form C, E, F)

Single risk factor control

 HbA1c (1% point reduction)

Fasting blood test

Baseline: Prior to intervention deliveryFollow-up: Annual visits post intervention delivery

Trial eCRF (Form C, E, F)

 SBP (5 mmHg reduction)

BP measurement using digital BP monitor (Omron-T9P)

Baseline: Prior to intervention deliveryFollow-up: Annual visits post intervention delivery

Trial eCRF (Form C, E, F)

 DBP (5 mmHg reduction)

BP measurement using digital BP monitor (Omron-T9P)

Baseline: Prior to intervention deliveryFollow-up: Annual visits post intervention delivery

Trial eCRF (Form C, E, F)

 LDLc (10 mg/dl reduction)

Fasting blood test

Baseline: Prior to intervention deliveryFollow-up: Annual visits post intervention delivery

Trial eCRF (Form C, E, F)

 Major adverse cardiovascular events

Self-reported by patient and physician verified

Follow-up: All study related and non-study related clinic visits

Trial eCRF (form X)

 Diabetes related micro-vascular complications

Self-reported by patient and physician verified

Follow-up: All study related and non-study related clinic visits

Trial eCRF (form X)

 Quality adjusted life years

EQ5D-3 L

Baseline: Prior to intervention deliveryFollow-up: Annual visits post intervention delivery

Trial eCRF (Form C, E, F)

HbA1c Glycated haemoglobin, SBP Systolic blood pressure, LDLc Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, eCRF Electronic case report form, EQ5D-3 L European Quality of Life five dimension 3 levels, BP Blood pressure, mg/dl Milligrams per deciliter, mmHg Millimeter of mercury

Resource use and cost data

Resource utilization and costs will be estimated using data from the CARRS Trial population (1146 participants). The study paid the costs of annual laboratory investigations, but patients had to bear the cost of clinic visits and laboratory tests for regular follow-up visits or any other interim clinic visits, tests, medication changes, or procedures advised by the treating physician. CARRS Trial data will be extracted from clinic and study records for the following: medication use, laboratory tests, consultations with healthcare professionals (outpatient attendance for diabetes); preventive screening (eye examination, foot examination, ECG, microalbuminuria test), emergency department attendances (when not admitted to hospital); and serious adverse events (including all hospital admissions).

Patients’ self-reported expenditures and costs of outpatient visits and hospitalizations related to diabetes complications will be extracted from the trial annual visit case report forms (CRF). Out-of-pocket expenses reported by the patients will permit estimation of economic value from the patient’s perspective.

To estimate value from a healthcare system perspective, unit costs for outpatient visits and in-patient hospitalizations, and processes of care measures including preventive examinations will be obtained from participating hospitals. For treatment of cardiovascular and microvascular events, we will extract detailed information concerning diagnosis; length of hospital stay; diagnostic/therapeutic procedures and any ongoing treatment and support. Additionally, the unit price of medications will be obtained from the PharmaTrac database for January 2014 [21]. PharmaTrac provides the market retail price (MRP) of all drugs by drug class, brand name, generic composition, formulation (oral/injectables), dose, and packs being sold in India. PharmaTrac has an extensive coverage of drug retailers and is believed to be a reliable source to estimate unit cost of drug prices in India. The IMS Health drug database will be used to estimate drug prices in Pakistan.

To estimate costs from the societal perspective, indirect costs due to lost productivity (number of work days missed due to out-patient or in-patient care) will be valued using the human capital approach [22]. Finally, total costs over the trial period and annual cost per patient (both undiscounted and discounted) will be estimated for individual patients by multiplying resource use by unit costs.

Intervention costs

Intervention development and delivery costs will be derived from the CARRS Trial expense records (accounts register) and will be estimated from the health system perspective. Intervention costs include DS-EHR development, implementation, and maintenance costs; intervention training; care coordinator salary; and the incremental health care costs associated with the intervention delivery (i.e. the costs of additional medicines, additional clinic visits that patients bear and whether it is different between the treatment groups). These costs will be calculated as average costs of implementation per person and exclude any research specific costs. The cost estimates assume that the DS-EHR is implemented in a relatively large tertiary care hospital having additional resource facilities to implement the intervention (i.e. workspace for the care coordinator, and access to internet service providers is considered a maintenance cost). DS-EHR development and maintenance costs will include software programmer’s time, expert consultant’s/physicians time in developing and reviewing the diabetes management algorithm. DS-EHR implementation cost will include care coordinators and site physician’s time to enter patient details in the EHR system and review of software generated diabetes management plans, respectively. Intervention training costs include training materials, the time of the trainers and the staff participating in the training, and training for physicians to use the DS-EHR algorithms. These costs will be estimated using the study’s accounting data. Training material and time costs will be estimated from the first year of the intervention. Tables 2 and 3 present an overview of cost measures, health service use, and source of data.
Table 2

Overview of cost measures

Type of cost

Level

Expense type

Cost component

Means of collection

Timing of collection

Source of data

Direct

Intervention

Fixed cost

Software development

Trial records

After completion of software development

Developers of software: DS-EHR

Fixed cost

Training of physicians and care coordinators

Trial records

After completion of training

Trial Team

Fixed cost

Laptop

Trial records

Baseline (at the start of the trial)

Trial records

Fixed cost

Mobile phone

Trial records

Baseline (at the start of the trial)

Trial records

Variable cost

Care coordinator’s salary

Trial records

Monthly

Payment invoice

Variable cost

Three-monthly laboratory tests

Interview with patients

Annual

Self-reported by patient

Variable cost

Internet

Trial records

Annual

Payment invoice

Variable cost

Communication cost

Trial records

Annual

Payment invoice

Fixed cost

Software maintenance

Trial records

Annual

Payment invoice

Clinic/Hospital

Variable cost

Physician’s time

Interview with patients and physicians

Annual

Self-reported by physicians

Variable cost

Resource use for patient management: telephone calls, letters, team meetings

Interview with physicians and hospital administrators

Annual

Self-reported by administrators

Patient

Variable cost

Medications

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Medical supplies (glucose strips, gauze, sterile solution, etc.)

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Laboratory tests

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Diagnostics

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Preventative screening (ECG, eye exam, foot exam, dental exam, etc.)

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Outpatient visits (consultation fee)

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Transportation

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Food (personal)

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Additional cost for escort

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Other out of pocket expenses

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

In-patient hospitalization

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Procedures

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Indirect

Patient

Variable cost

Lost-productivity

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Work days lost due to out-patient visit

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

Work days lost due to in-patient hospitalization

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

loss of concentration

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

Variable cost

loss of function (health utility index)

Interview with patients + Trial eCRF

Annual

Self-reported by patient in eCRF

DS-EHR Decision-support Electronic Health Records, ECG Electrocardiogram, eCRF Electronic case report form

Table 3

Self-reported health services use and sources of data

Service type

Source of unit costs

Outpatient clinic visit

OOP

HbA1c testing

OOP

Cholesterol testing

OOP

Foot examination at clinic

OOP

Eye examination

OOP

Microalbuminuria check

OOP

ECG

OOP

Dental exam

OOP

Dietician visit

OOP

Diabetes educator visit

OOP

Other healthcare practitioner visits

OOP

Time spent commuting to clinic

Wage loss due to missed work days

Time spent for lab tests including waiting

Wage loss due to missed work days

Time spent waiting for consultation

Wage loss due to missed work days

Time spent in-person with doctor

Wage loss due to missed work days

Time spent with dietician, nurse of clinic-staff receiving self-care education

Wage loss due to missed work days

Other time for check-out including medications

Wage loss due to missed work days

Hospitalization

OOP

Emergency room visit

OOP

Medications

Pharmatrac/IMS/OOP

Abbreviations: OOP Out of pocket medical expenses, HbA1c Glycated haemoglobin, ECG Electrocardiogram

Within trial cost-effectiveness analysis

Based on estimates of between-group differences in mean healthcare costs and outcomes (adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics) over the study period, we will estimate the following incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs):
  • Incremental cost per primary outcome achieved (i.e. multiple risk factor control: HbA1c < 7% and BP < 130/80 mmHg and/or LDLc< 100 mg/dl)

  • Incremental cost per unit reduction in single risk factors: HbA1c (1% point reduction), SBP (5 mmHg reduction), and LDLc (10 mg/dl reduction)

  • Incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained

Non-parametric bootstrapping will be used to report 95% confidence intervals around the ICER estimates [23]. ICERs will be reported in US$ 2018. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves against a wide range of willingness to pay values will be presented [24]. Cost-effectiveness results will be also presented by major sub-groups: age, gender, education, income level, types of health setting (public, private or semi-private) and history of macro- and micro-vascular complications.

Missing data

The CARRS Trial has a minimal loss to follow-up including consent withdrawals and deaths at 2.5 years (9.2%) but, if needed; multiple imputation approaches will be used to handle missing outcomes data [12]. For EQ5D-3 L scores, which will be used for QALY estimation, we will follow the developer’s guideline for missing data; that is, missing data will be handled by imputing values within each dimension [2528]. To address potential biases due to incomplete follow-up, we will use multiple imputation approaches to replace missing cost values if missing data accounts for more than 10% of a domain/variable [2931]. Since cost data are unlikely to be normally distributed, [29] we will use the multiple imputation chained equations approach to impute missing cost data. Costs will be imputed at the total cost level [29].

Decision-modeling based cost-utility analysis

A decision-analytic microsimulation model will be developed to evaluate long-term costs and health consequences of delivering care for people with type 2 diabetes using a multicomponent QI strategy rather than current standard care approaches. A microsimulation model is chosen as it is very flexible and can reflect complex treatment pathways and relationships between individuals’ characteristics, histories, and outcomes; it can be used to examine the impact of real resource constraints within a healthcare system.

The microsimulation decision model will be implemented using appropriate software: STATA or a programming language (e.g. R). To assure the credibility of our model, we will follow international guidelines for verification and validation of decision models [32].

Model analysis

All analyses will compare results for the CARRS multicomponent QI care delivery model versus usual diabetes care. In the CARRS Trial microsimulation model, costs and QALYs will be recorded for each individual and an average cost and QALY for the simulated population will be estimated. The microsimulation model will be run twice, once to simulate costs and QALYs under usual care and the other to simulate costs and QALYs under the intervention scenario (multicomponent QI strategy). Individuals representing the CARRS trial inclusion criteria will enter the model and their baseline risk for CVD events and diabetes-related microvascular complications will be estimated using the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 algorithm. Costs and QALYs will be recorded for each event (including adverse events). Individuals can experience more than one event (model run for lifetime horizon) and patient characteristics such as age and history of previous events, such as a stroke or diabetic retinopathy, will be updated as the model is being run, with ensuing reflective increases in the risk of an event. The simulation model will run for a sufficient number of iterations to provide stable results. If there is a trade-off between costs and health effects (higher costs and better health outcomes for the CARRS intervention, or vice versa), the incremental cost per cardiovascular event averted, incremental cost per diabetes-related microvascular complication averted, and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained will be reported. Projections of cost-effectiveness estimates over a lifetime horizon will be made for India and Pakistan.

Sensitivity analysis

Several one-way sensitivity analyses will be carried out to estimate the uncertainties around ICERs. First, to address the uncertainty around the ICER relating to external validity, we will carry out sensitivity analyses on the most important cost drivers (medications, hospitalizations, and consultation fees) to assess the impact of protocol-driven healthcare use. Second, total cost will be calculated with and without the costs of developing the intervention (DS-EHR) to ascertain whether an increased cost in the intervention arm could be explained by costs for some of the components of the intervention. Lastly, sensitivity analyses would vary the effectiveness of the intervention in trial vs. non-trial settings based on the lower and upper limit of 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the effect estimates. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be presented using a scatter plot of points on the cost-effectiveness plane – illustrating the possible ranges of estimates of incremental costs and incremental QALYs [24].

Discussion

The publication and peer-review of economic evaluation protocols alongside clinical trials is recommended to increase transparency and minimise bias [33]. Here, we describe the protocol of an economic evaluation of a multicomponent QI strategy compared to usual diabetes care in South Asia from patient, healthcare system, and societal perspectives. There are very few economic evaluations of QI strategies for chronic disease management in South Asia [34] or in LMICs in general, and so this report fills a gap. Following internationally recognised guidelines [15], this protocol serves to heighten the transparency of our economic evaluation approach.

Economic evaluations from high-income countries demonstrate that multifactorial QI strategies are cost-effective. For example, the STENO-2 study showed that, from a health care payer perspective in Denmark, intensive multifactorial intervention was more cost-effective than conventional treatment (ICER: €2538 or US$ 2954 per QALY gained) over a lifetime horizon [35]. Increased costs with intensive treatment were due to increased pharmacy and consultation costs. However, this also resulted in more QALYs gained for intensive treatment versus conventional treatment (+ 1.66 QALYs). The ADDITION-UK trial based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing intensive versus conventional treatment demonstrated an ICER of £71,232 (US$93566)/QALY, £28,444 (US$37362)/QALY, and £27,549 (US$36186)/QALY over 10-, 20-, and 30-year time horizons respectively [36]. Given the United Kingdom’s willingness-to-pay thresholds in patients with diabetes, intensive treatment was of borderline cost-effectiveness over a time horizon of ≥20 years. The estimates of cost-effectiveness from the CARRS Trial will provide much needed data on whether a simple multifactorial intervention can improve health outcomes with modest increases in costs in resource-constrained settings.

To enhance external validity, it is recommended that evaluations using randomised controlled trials should identify threats to validity such as recruitment/selection bias, protocol-driven utilisation, and enhanced compliance [34, 37]. Regarding recruitment biases, the CARRS Trial’s multicentre approach and inclusion of public, private, and semi-private practices increases the generalisability and transferability of our economic evaluation findings [38]. Further, we will extrapolate the decision analytic microsimulation model beyond the within-trial analysis by using a sample population of poorly controlled type 2 diabetes patients in India / Pakistan stratified by age-group, gender, and location. Also, although Markov models can also be adapted for this purpose, microsimulation models are better suited for analysis of a mixed population with both incident and prevalent diabetes complications (cardiovascular diseases and microvascular events) [39].

This study has several strengths. First, the economic evaluation protocol follows recognised international guidelines to design and report on the relative costs and benefits of an intervention tested in a randomised trial [15, 37]. Second, the economic evaluation will include individual patient-level data over a lengthy 2.5 years of follow up, which are preferable for economic evaluations [15]. Importantly, these patient-level data include objective measures of health outcomes, health service use, and medicine use, all obtained during the trial [40]. Reliable economic evaluations are crucial to shape healthcare policy, in particular when the possibility of bias in economic evidence has been minimised by randomisation [40]. Third, our cost-effectiveness results will also provide a range of values for both the cost of achieving multiple risk factor targets but also costs to achieve single and combined risk factor improvements from poorly controlled baseline values (mean baseline HbA1c = 9.9) from various perspectives (patient, healthcare system and societal). Given a large proportion of healthcare in South Asia is paid for out-of-pocket, our economic analyses consider that scenario explicitly with a patient perspective analysis. Fourth, our proposed micro-simulation model based on UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 will enable long-term cost-effectiveness analysis and a population budget impact analysis which will provide cross-sectional estimates of population impact by year for planning purposes and scalability of the intervention.

This study has a few noteworthy limitations. First, reliance on patient self-reported out-of-pocket medical cost data may impact the validity of study results. A 2016 systematic review of validated self-reported questionnaires to measure resource utilization and costs in economic evaluation concluded that self-reported questionnaires had good agreement with administrative data and are a valid method of collecting data on health resource utilization and associated costs [41]. However, to overcome any reporting bias in self-reported costs data, a sub-set of self-reported costs will be verified against the administrative data and we will carry out several one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses around the self-reported costs in the microsimulation model to estimate the confidence in the reported ICER values. Another limitation of the proposed evaluation is that in India and Pakistan, there is not an explicit willingness to pay threshold for reduction of cardiovascular risk in people with diabetes, or an explicit willingness to pay threshold for cost per unit reductions in CVD risk factors. As such, it is hard to declare how patients value the intervention. The Commission for Macroeconomics and Health recommends using a threshold of 1-3x GDP per capita per QALY gained or DALYs averted to define cost-effectiveness of a new intervention when conducting global or regional economic evaluations [16, 42]. Although arbitrary, we will use this threshold as it has been used previously and has some philosophical underpinnings [43]. We will apply these and then perform a sensitivity analysis for the main economic outcome and present the cost-effectiveness results on a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve considering a wide range of willingness to pay values. Common to all cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside randomised trials, external validity of the results may be influenced by restrictive inclusion criteria and protocol-driven resource use, among other factors [15, 37]. Therefore, we will conduct a range of sensitivity analyses around key variables (cost drivers, total cost calculated with and without the cost of the intervention development, patient characteristics, and effectiveness of the intervention) to address the uncertainties around the ICERs.

In conclusion, we hypothesise that the additional upfront cost of delivering the intervention will be counterbalanced by improvements in clinical practice and patient related outcomes, thereby rendering the CARRS QI strategy cost-effective. The results of this study will be of immediate relevance for decision makers of all sorts –patients, healthcare providers, and policy makers– concerning implementation of this healthcare delivery intervention to improve diabetes care goals.

Abbreviations

€: 

Euros

BP: 

Blood pressure

CARRS: 

Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia

CC: 

Care coordinator

CI: 

Confidence interval

CRF: 

Case report form

CVD: 

Cardiovascular disease

DBP: 

Diastolic blood pressure

DS-HER: 

Decision support electronic health records

DSS: 

Decision support software

ECG: 

Electrocardiogram

EQ-5D 3 L: 

European Quality of Life 5 dimensions - 3 levels

GDP: 

Gross domestic product

HbA1c: 

Glycated haemoglobin

ICER: 

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

LDLc: 

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

LMIC: 

Low- and middle- income countries

QALYs: 

Quality adjusted life years

QI: 

Quality improvement

SBP: 

Systolic blood pressure

UK: 

United Kingdom

UKPDS: 

United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study

US$: 

United States dollar

Declarations

Funding

The CARRS trial was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under contract number HHSN268200900026C, and by UnitedHealth Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Several members of the research team at the Public Health Foundation of India and Emory University were supported by the Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows program through grant number 5R24TW007988 from the National Institutes of Health, Fogarty International Center through Vanderbilt University, Emory Global Health Institute, and D43 NCDs in India Training Program through award number 1D43HD05249 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Fogarty International Center. Dr. Kavita Singh was supported by the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, under award number D43TW008332 (ASCEND Research Network). Dr. M K Ali is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health supplemental grant under award number: R01MH100390-04S1.

We also acknowledge the contributions of the software development team: Mr. Prashant Tandon and Mr. Ajeet Kushwaha.

The funding sources were not involved in the data collection, analysis, writing or interpretation of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable as this manuscript represent a study protocol for the cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors’ contributions

KS, NT, DP, KMVN, MKA, and VP have formulated the design of the economic evaluation carried out alongside the CARRS randomised controlled trial. KS, NT, MKA, KMVN and DP have composed the questionnaires. All authors have taken part in preparation of the manuscript and have reviewed critically for the intellectual content and approved the final version.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Institutional ethics committees at each participating site and the research coordinating centres (Public Health Foundation of India and Emory University, USA) approved the study and all physicians and patients gave written informed consent prior to participating in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Public Health Foundation of India, Center of Excellence - Center for CArdio-metabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia, 4th Floor, Plot No. 47, Sector 44, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122 002, India
(2)
Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, Rm CNR 7041, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
(3)
Department of Endocrinology & Diabetes, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Ponekkara P.O., Kochi, Kerala, 682 041, India
(4)
Department of Endocrinology, TNM College & BYL Nair Charity Hospital, Dr. A. L. Nair Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400 008, India
(5)
MV Hospital for Diabetes & Diabetes Research Centre, No 4, West Madha Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 013, India
(6)
Bangalore Endocrinology & Diabetes Research Centre, #35, 5th Cross, Malleswaram Circle, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560 003, India
(7)
Department of Endocrinology, St. John’s Medical College & Hospital, Sarjapur Road, Koramangala, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560 034, India
(8)
Department of Endocrinology, Osmania General Hospital, 2nd Floor, Golden Jubilee Block, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500 012, India
(9)
Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Aga Khan University, Stadium Road, Karachi, 74800, Pakistan
(10)
Department of Endocrinology & Metabolism, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Biotechnology Block, 3rd Floor, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110 029, India
(11)
Endocrine Unit, Department of Medicine, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa, 403202, India
(12)
Public Health Foundation of India, 4th Floor, Plot No. 47, Sector 44, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122 002, India
(13)
Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, Rm CNR 7049, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
(14)
Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
(15)
Department of Endocrinology & Metabolism, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Biotechnology Block, 3rd Floor, Rm #312, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110 029, India
(16)
Centre for Chronic Disease Control, C 1/52, Second Floor, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, 110016, India
(17)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 7HT, UK

References

  1. Bommer C, Heesemann E, Sagalova V, Manne-Goehler J, Atun R, Barnighausen T, Vollmer S. The global economic burden of diabetes in adults aged 20-79 years: a cost-of-illness study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(6):423–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu S, Bendavid E, Sood N. Health and economic implications of National Treatment Coverage for cardiovascular disease in India: cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(6):541–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Deepa M, Anjana RM, Manjula D, Narayan KM, Mohan V. Convergence of prevalence rates of diabetes and cardiometabolic risk factors in middle and low income groups in urban India: 10-year follow-up of the Chennai urban population study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(4):918–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Decker SL, Kostova D, Kenney GM, Long SK. Health status, risk factors, and medical conditions among persons enrolled in Medicaid vs uninsured low-income adults potentially eligible for Medicaid under the affordable care act. JAMA. 2013;309(24):2579–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Shivashankar R, Kirk K, Kim WC, Rouse C, Tandon N, Narayan KM, Ali MK. Quality of diabetes care in low- and middle-income Asian and middle eastern countries (1993-2012): 20-year systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2015;107(2):203–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Tharkar S, Devarajan A, Kumpatla S, Viswanathan V. The socioeconomics of diabetes from a developing country: a population based cost of illness study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;89(3):334–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Tharkar S, Satyavani K, Viswanathan V. Cost of medical care among type 2 diabetic patients with a co-morbid condition--hypertension in India. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009;83(2):263–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Chin MH, Cook S, Jin L, Drum ML, Harrison JF, Koppert J, Thiel F, Harrand AG, Schaefer CT, Takashima HT, et al. Barriers to providing diabetes care in community health centers. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(2):268–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Sohal T, Sohal P, King-Shier KM, Khan NA. Barriers and facilitators for Type-2 diabetes Management in South Asians: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0136202.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Nam S, Chesla C, Stotts NA, Kroon L, Janson SL. Barriers to diabetes management: patient and provider factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;93(1):1–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Wangnoo SK, Maji D, Das AK, Rao PV, Moses A, Sethi B, Unnikrishnan AG, Kalra S, Balaji V, Bantwal G, et al. Barriers and solutions to diabetes management: an Indian perspective. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2013;17(4):594–601.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Ali MK, Singh K, Kondal D, Devarajan R, Patel SA, Shivashankar R, Ajay VS, Unnikrishnan AG, Menon VU, Varthakavi PK, et al. Effectiveness of a multicomponent quality improvement strategy to improve achievement of diabetes care goals: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(6):399–408.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Nuckols TK, Keeler E, Anderson LJ, Green J, Morton SC, Doyle BJ, Shetty K, Arifkhanova A, Booth M, Shanman R, et al. Economic evaluation of quality improvement interventions designed to improve glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review and weighted regression analysis. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):985–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Singh K, Chandrasekaran AM, Bhaumik S, Chattopadhyay K, Gamage AU, Silva P, Roy A, Prabhakaran D, Tandon N. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to control cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus in South Asia: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e017809.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, Briggs A, Sullivan SD. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2015;18(2):161–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, Evans DB, Murray CJL. WHO Guide to Cost-effectiveness analysis; 2003.Google Scholar
  17. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, Kuntz KM, Meltzer DO, Owens DK, Prosser LA, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. The CARRS Trial Writing Group, Shah S, Singh K, Ali MK, Mohan V, Kadir MM, Unnikrishnan AG, Sahay RK, Varthakavi P, Dharmalingam M, et al. Improving diabetes care: multi-component cardiovascular disease risk reduction strategies for people with diabetes in South Asia--the CARRS multi-center translation trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012;98(2):285–94.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes AJ, Leal J, Gray AM, Holman RR, Clarke PM. UKPDS outcomes model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom prospective diabetes study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia. 2013;56(9):1925–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Nabel EG, Braunwald E. A tale of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(1):54–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Krol M, Brouwer W. How to estimate productivity costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):335–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Nixon RM, Wonderling D, Grieve RD. Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared. Health Econ. 2010;19(3):316–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Fenwick E, Marshall DA, Levy AR, Nichol G. Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Sonntag M, Konnopka A, Leichsenring F, Salzer S, Beutel ME, Herpertz S, Hiller W, Hoyer J, Joraschky P, Nolting B, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with social phobia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:215.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Horowitz E, Abadi-Korek I, Shani M, Shemer J. EQ-5D as a generic measure of health-related quality of life in Israel: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Isr Med Assoc J. 2010;12(12):715–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Yordanova S, Petkova V, Petrova G, Dimitrov M, Naseva E, Dimitrova M, Petkova E. Comparison of health-related quality-of-life measurement instruments in diabetic patients. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2014;28(4):769–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Simons CL, Rivero-Arias O, Yu LM, Simon J. Multiple imputation to deal with missing EQ-5D-3L data: should we impute individual domains or the actual index? Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):805–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(12):1157–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, Clarke P. Missing... presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ. 2003;12(5):377–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(1):3–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force--7. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Godlee F. Publishing study protocols: making them visible will improve registration, reporting and recruitment. BMC News Views. 2001;2:4.Google Scholar
  34. O'Sullivan AK, Thompson D, Drummond MF. Collection of health-economic data alongside clinical trials: is there a future for piggyback evaluations? Value Health. 2005;8(1):67–79.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Gaede P, Valentine WJ, Palmer AJ, Tucker DM, Lammert M, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Cost-effectiveness of intensified versus conventional multifactorial intervention in type 2 diabetes: results and projections from the Steno-2 study. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1510–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Tao L, Wilson EC, Wareham NJ, Sandbaek A, Rutten GE, Lauritzen T, Khunti K, Davies MJ, Borch-Johnsen K, Griffin SJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intensive multifactorial treatment compared with routine care for individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes: analysis of the ADDITION-UK cluster-randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2015;32(7):907–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, Brown R, Buxton M, Chawla A, Cook J, Glick H, Liljas B, Petitti D, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA task force report. Value Health. 2005;8(5):521–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnston K, Buxton MJ, Jones DR, Fitzpatrick R. Assessing the costs of healthcare technologies in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(6):1–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Davis S, Stevenson M, Tappenden P, Wailoo A. NICE DSU Technical support Document 15: cost-effectiveness modelling using patient level simulation; 2014.Google Scholar
  40. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  41. Leggett LE, Khadaroo RG, Holroyd-Leduc J, Lorenzetti DL, Hanson H, Wagg A, Padwal R, Clement F. Measuring resource utilization: a systematic review of validated self-reported questionnaires. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(10):e2759.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. World Health Organization 2001. Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development. http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/PEAMMarch2005/CMHReport.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2019.Google Scholar
  43. Ali M, Siegel K, Chandrasekar E, Tandon N, Montoya P, et. al. “Diabetes: An Update on the Pandemic and Potential Solutions”. In: Disease Control Priorities (third edition): Volume 5, Cardiovascular, Respiratory, and Related Disorders, edited by D. Prabhakaran, S. Anand, T. Gaziano, J. Mbanya, Y. Wu, R. Nugent. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2019

Advertisement