Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a digital diabetes prevention program: results from the PREDICTS trial

Transl Behav Med. 2023 Jul 1;13(7):501-510. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibad008.

Abstract

Although technology-assisted diabetes prevention programs (DPPs) have been shown to improve glycemic control and weight loss, information are limited regarding relevant costs and their cost-effectiveness. To describe a retrospective within-trial cost and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare a digital-based DPP (d-DPP) with small group education (SGE), over a 1-year study period. The costs were summarized into direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs (i.e., times that participants spent engaging with the interventions), and indirect costs (i.e., lost work productivity costs). The CEA was measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed using nonparametric bootstrap analysis. Over 1 year, the direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, and indirect costs per participant were $4,556, $1,595, and $6,942 in the d-DPP group versus $4,177, $1,350, and $9,204 in the SGE group. The CEA results showed cost savings from d-DPP relative to SGE based on a societal perspective. Using a private payer perspective for d-DPP, ICERs were $4,739 and $114 to obtain an additional unit reduction in HbA1c (%) and weight (kg), and were $19,955 for an additional unit gain of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to SGE, respectively. From a societal perspective, bootstrapping results indicated that d-DPP has a 39% and a 69% probability, at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, respectively, of being cost-effective. The d-DPP was cost-effective and offers the prospect of high scalability and sustainability due to its program features and delivery modes, which can be easily translated to other settings.

Keywords: absenteeism; digital health; economic evaluation; lifestyle intervention; presenteeism; work productivity.

Plain language summary

Although technology-assisted DPPs have been shown to improve glycemic control and/or weight loss, information is limited on examining relevant costs and the cost-effectiveness of DPPs with the use of remote technologies within a randomized controlled trial design. We evaluated the costs associated with a d-DPP and further examined the cost-effectiveness of the d-DPP with an enhanced usual care condition. The d-DPP was cost-effective in achieving HbA1c reduction and weight loss and offers the prospect of high scalability and sustainability due to its program features and delivery modes, which can be easily translated to other settings.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial

MeSH terms

  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Cost-Effectiveness Analysis*
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2* / prevention & control
  • Humans
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Weight Loss

Grants and funding