RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the direct medical costs associated with type 2 diabetes, its complications, and its comorbidities among U.S. managed care patients. STUDY DESIGN: Data were from patient surveys, chart reviews, and health insurance claims for 7109 people with type 2 diabetes from 8 health plans participating in the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study between 1999 and 2002. METHODS: A generalized linear regression model was developed to estimate the association of patients' demographic characteristics, tobacco use status, treatments, related complications, and comorbidities with medical costs. RESULTS: The mean annualized direct medical cost was $2465 for a white man with type 2 diabetes who had been diagnosed fewer than 15 years earlier, was treated with oral medication or diet alone, and had no complications or comorbidities. We found annualized medical costs to be 10% to 50% higher for women and for patients whose diabetes had been diagnosed 15 or more years earlier, who used tobacco, who were being treated with insulin, or who had several other complications. Coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, hemiplegia, and amputation were each associated with 70% to 150% higher costs. Costs were approximately 300% higher for end-stage renal disease treated with dialysis and approximately 500% higher for end-stage renal disease with kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Most medical costs incurred by patients with type 2 diabetes are related to complications and comorbidities. Our cost estimates can help when determining the most cost-effective interventions to prevent complications and comorbidities.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/economía , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Adolescente , Adulto , Comorbilidad , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiología , Femenino , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Costos de la Atención en Salud/tendencias , Humanos , Modelos Lineales , Masculino , Auditoría Médica , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the health utility scores associated with type 2 diabetes, its treatments, complications, and comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed health-related quality-of-life data, collected at baseline during Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes, a multicenter, prospective, observational study of diabetes care in managed care, for 7,327 individuals with type 2 diabetes. We measured quality-of-life using the EuroQol (EQ)-5D, a standardized instrument for which 1.00 indicates perfect health. We used multivariable regression to estimate the independent impact of demographic characteristics, diabetes treatments, complications, and comorbidities on health-related quality-of-life. RESULTS: The mean EQ-5D-derived health utility score for those individuals with diabetes was 0.80. The modeled utility score for a nonobese, non-insulin-treated, non-Asian, non-Hispanic man with type 2 diabetes, with an annual household income of more than $40,000, and with no diabetes complications, risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or comorbidities, was 0.92. Being a woman, being obese, smoking, and having a lower household income were associated with lower utility scores. Arranging complications from least to most severe according to the reduction in health utility scores resulted in the following order: peripheral vascular disease, other heart diseases, transient ischemic attack, cerebral vascular accident, nonpainful diabetic neuropathy, congestive heart failure, dialysis, hemiplegia, painful neuropathy, and amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Major diabetes complications and comorbidities are associated with decreased health-related quality-of-life. Utility estimates from our study can be used to assess the impact of diabetes on quality-of-life and conduct cost-utility analyses.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Complicaciones de la Diabetes/complicaciones , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients who speak Spanish and/or have low socioeconomic status are at greater risk of suboptimal glycemic control. Inadequate intensification of anti-glycemic medications may partially explain this disparity. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between primary language, income, and medication intensification. DESIGN: Cohort study with 18-month follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine patients with Type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin enrolled in the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes Study (TRIAD), a study of diabetes care in managed care. MEASUREMENTS: Using administrative pharmacy data, we compared the odds of medication intensification for patients with baseline A1c ≥ 8%, by primary language and annual income. Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, Charlson score, diabetes duration, baseline A1c, type of diabetes treatment, and health plan. RESULTS: Overall, 42.4% of patients were taking intensified regimens at the time of follow-up. We found no difference in the odds of intensification for English speakers versus Spanish speakers. However, compared to patients with incomes <$15,000, patients with incomes of $15,000-$39,999 (OR 1.43, 1.07-1.92), $40,000-$74,999 (OR 1.62, 1.16-2.26) or >$75,000 (OR 2.22, 1.53-3.24) had increased odds of intensification. This latter pattern did not differ statistically by race. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income patients were less likely to receive medication intensification compared to higher-income patients, but primary language (Spanish vs. English) was not associated with differences in intensification in a managed care setting. Future studies are needed to explain the reduced rate of intensification among low income patients in managed care.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/economía , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/etnología , Hipoglucemiantes/economía , Renta , Lenguaje , Programas Controlados de Atención en Salud/economía , Adulto , Anciano , Glucemia/efectos de los fármacos , Glucemia/metabolismo , Estudios de Cohortes , Barreras de Comunicación , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Índice Glucémico/efectos de los fármacos , Índice Glucémico/fisiología , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/farmacología , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Programas Controlados de Atención en Salud/normas , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Thiazolidinedione (TZD) treatment has been associated with fractures. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between TZD treatment and fractures in type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: Using data from Translating Research into Action for Diabetes, a multicenter prospective observational study of diabetes care in managed care, we conducted a matched case-control study to assess the odds of TZD exposure in patients with type 2 diabetes with and without fractures. We identified 786 cases based on fractures detected in health plan administrative data. Up to four controls without any fracture diagnoses were matched to each case. Controls were matched on health plan, date of birth within 5 yr, sex, race/ethnicity, and body mass index within 5 kg/m(2). We performed conditional logistic regression for premenopausal and postmenopausal women and men to assess the odds of exposure to potential risk factors for fracture, including medications, self-reported limited mobility, and lower-extremity amputations. RESULTS: We found statistically significant increased odds of exposure to TZDs, glucocorticoids, loop diuretics, and self-reported limited mobility for women 50 yr of age and older with fractures. Exposure to both loop diuretics and TZDs, glucocorticoids, and insulin and limited mobility and lower-extremity amputation were associated with fractures in men. CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal women taking TZDs and the subset of men taking both loop diuretics and TZDs were at increased risk for fractures. In postmenopausal women, risk was associated with higher TZD dose. No difference between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone was apparent.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Fracturas Óseas/inducido químicamente , Tiazolidinedionas/efectos adversos , Tiazolidinedionas/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiología , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Femenino , Fracturas Óseas/epidemiología , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pioglitazona , Rosiglitazona , Investigación Biomédica TraslacionalRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Studies have associated thiazolidinedione (TZD) treatment with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and questioned whether the two available TZDs, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, have different CVD risks. We compared CVD incidence, cardiovascular (CV), and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients treated with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone as their only TZD. METHODS: We analyzed survey, medical record, administrative, and National Death Index (NDI) data from 1999 through 2003 from Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD), a prospective observational study of diabetes care in managed care. Medications, CV procedures, and CVD were determined from health plan (HP) administrative data, and mortality was from NDI. Adjusted hazard rates (AHR) were derived from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, history of diabetic nephropathy, history of CVD, insulin use, and HP. RESULTS: Across TRIAD's 10 HPs, 1,815 patients (24%) filled prescriptions for a TZD, 773 (10%) for only rosiglitazone, 711 (10%) for only pioglitazone, and 331 (4%) for multiple TZDs. In the seven HPs using both TZDs, 1,159 patients (33%) filled a prescription for a TZD, 564 (16%) for only rosiglitazone, 334 (10%) for only pioglitazone, and 261 (7%) for multiple TZDs. For all CV events, CV, and all-cause mortality, we found no significant difference between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: In this relatively small, prospective, observational study, we found no statistically significant differences in CV outcomes for rosiglitazone- compared to pioglitazone-treated patients. There does not appear to be a pattern of clinically meaningful differences in CV outcomes for rosiglitazone- versus pioglitazone-treated patients.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/inducido químicamente , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Tiazolidinedionas/efectos adversos , Anciano , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/mortalidad , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Programas Controlados de Atención en Salud , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pioglitazona , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Rosiglitazona , Tiazolidinedionas/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Our purpose was to assess the cost, quality of life impact, and the cost-utility of bariatric surgery in a managed care population. We studied 221 patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2001 and 2005. We analyzed medical claims data for all patients and survey data for 122 survey respondents (55% response rate). Patients were generally middle-aged, female, and white. Sixty-four percent underwent open and 33% underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y procedures. One year after surgery, mean body mass index fell from 51 to 31 kg/m(2) in women and from 59 to 35 kg/m(2) in men with substantial improvements in comorbidities. Postsurgical mortality and morbidity were low. Total per member per month costs increased in the 6 months before bariatric surgery, were lower in the 12 months after bariatric surgery, but increased somewhat over the next 12 months. When presurgical quality of life was assessed prospectively, average health utility scores improved by 0.14 one year after surgery. In analyses that took a lifetime time horizon, projected future costs based on age and obesity and discounted costs and health utilities at 3% per year, the cost-utility ratio for bariatric surgery versus no surgery was approximately $1,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In sensitivity analyses, bariatric surgery was more cost-effective in women, non-whites, more obese patients, and when performed laparoscopically. Although not cost-saving, bariatric surgery represents a very good value for money. Its long-term cost effectiveness appears to depend on the natural history and cost of late postsurgical complications and the natural history and cost of untreated morbid obesity.
Asunto(s)
Anastomosis en-Y de Roux/economía , Cirugía Bariátrica/economía , Laparoscopía/economía , Programas Controlados de Atención en Salud/economía , Obesidad Mórbida/cirugía , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Índice de Masa Corporal , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the predictors of intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes; its impact on A1C, body weight, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and health status; and patient characteristics associated with improvement in A1C. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed survey, medical record, and health plan administrative data collected in Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). We examined patients who were using diet/exercise or oral antihyperglycemic medications at baseline, had A1C >7.2%, and stayed with the same therapy or intensified therapy (initiated or increased the number of classes of oral antihyperglycemic medications or began insulin) over 18 months. RESULTS: Of 1,093 patients, 520 intensified therapy with oral medications or insulin. Patients intensifying therapy were aged 58 +/- 12 years, had diabetes duration of 11 +/- 9 years, and had A1C of 9.1 +/- 1.5%. Younger age and higher A1C were associated with therapy intensification. Compared with patients who did not intensify therapy, those who intensified therapy experienced a 0.49% reduction in A1C (P < 0.0001), a 3-pound increase in weight (P = 0.003), and no change in anxiety/depression (P = 0.5) or health status (P = 0.2). Among those who intensified therapy, improvement in A1C was associated with higher baseline A1C, older age, black race/ethnicity, lower income, and more physician visits. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification improved glycemic control with no worsening of anxiety/depression or health status, especially in elderly, lower-income, and minority patients with type 2 diabetes. Interventions are needed to overcome clinical inertia when patients might benefit from treatment intensification and improved glycemic control.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Edad de Inicio , Anciano , Ansiedad/epidemiología , Depresión/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/psicología , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Hemoglobina Glucada/efectos de los fármacos , Hemoglobina Glucada/metabolismo , Estado de Salud , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between physicians' reimbursement perceptions and outpatient test performance among patients with diabetes mellitus. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Participants were physicians (n = 766) and their managed care patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 2758) enrolled in 6 plans in 2003. Procedures measured included electrocardiography, radiography or x-ray films, urine microalbumin levels, glycosylated hemoglobin levels, and Pap smears for women. Hierarchical logistic regression models were adjusted for health plan and physician-level clustering and for physician and patient covariates. To minimize confounding by unmeasured health plan variables, we adjusted for health plan as a fixed effect. Therefore, we estimated variation between physicians using only the variance within health plans. RESULTS: Patients of physicians who reported reimbursement for electrocardiography were more likely to undergo electrocardiography than patients of physicians who did not perceive reimbursement (unadjusted mean difference, 4.9%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-8.9%; and adjusted mean difference, 3.9%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2%-7.8%). For the other tests examined, no significant differences in procedure performance were found between patients of physicians who perceived reimbursement and patients of physicians who did not perceive reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement perception was associated with electrocardiography but not with other commonly performed outpatient procedures. Future research should investigate how associations change with perceived amount of reimbursement and their interactions with other influences on test-ordering behavior such as perceived appropriateness.