Costs and outcomes of "intermediate" vs "minimal" care for youth-onset type 1 diabetes in six countries.

OBJECTIVE: Data are needed to demonstrate that providing an "intermediate" level of type 1 diabetes (T1D) care is cost-effective compared to "minimal" care in less-resourced countries. We studied these care scenarios in six countries. METHODS: We modeled the complications/costs/mortality/healthy life years (HLYs) associated with "intermediate" care including two blood glucose tests/day (mean HbA1c 9.0% [75 mmol/mol]) in three lower-gross domestic product (GDP) countries (Mali, Tanzania, Pakistan), or three tests/day (mean HbA1c 8.5% [69 mmol/mol]) in three higher-GDP countries (Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Azerbaijan); and compared findings to "minimal" care (mean HbA1c 12.5% [113 mmol/mol]). A discrete time Markov illness-death model with age and calendar-year-dependent transition probabilities was developed, with inputs of 30 years of complications and Standardized Mortality Rate data from the youth cohort in the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study, background mortality, and costs determined from international and local prices. RESULTS: Cumulative 30 years incidences of complications were much lower for "intermediate care" than "minimal care", for example, for renal failure incidence was 68.1% (HbA1c 12.5%) compared to 3.9% (9%) and 2.4% (8.5%). For Mali, Tanzania, Pakistan, Bolivia, Sri Lanka, and Azerbaijan, 30 years survival was 50.1%/52.7%/76.7%/72.5%/82.8%/89.2% for "intermediate" and 8.5%/10.1%/39.4%/25.8%/45.5%/62.1% for "minimal" care, respectively. The cost of a HLY gained as a % GDP/capita was 141.1%/110.0%/52.3%/41.8%/17.0%/15.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Marked reductions in complications rates and mortality are achievable with "intermediate" T1D care achieving mean clinic HbA1c of 8.5% to 9% (69-75 mmol/mol). This is also "very cost-effective" in four of six countries according to the WHO "Fair Choices" approach which costs HLYs gained against GDP/capita.

Levels of type 1 diabetes care in children and adolescents for countries at varying resource levels.

Optimal care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes is well described in guidelines, such as those of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes. High-income countries can usually provide this, but the cost of this care is generally prohibitive for lower-income countries. Indeed, in most of these countries, very little care is provided by government health systems, resulting in high mortality, and high complications rates in those who do survive. As lower-income countries work toward establishing guidelines-based care, it is helpful to describe the levels of care that are potentially affordable, cost-effective, and result in substantially improved clinical outcomes. We have developed a levels of care concept with three tiers: "minimal care," "intermediate care," and "comprehensive (guidelines-based) care." Each tier contains levels, which describe insulin and blood glucose monitoring regimens, requirements for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, complications screening, diabetes education, and multidisciplinary care. The literature provides various examples at each tier, including from countries where the life for a child and the changing diabetes in children programs have assisted local diabetes centres to introduce intermediate care. Intra-clinic mean HbA1c levels range from 12.0% to 14.0% (108-130 mmol/mol) for the most basic level of minimal care, 8.0% to 9.5% (64-80 mmol/mol) for intermediate care, and 6.9% to 8.5% (52-69 mmol/mol) for comprehensive care. Countries with sufficient resources should provide comprehensive care, working to ensure that it is accessible by all in need, and that resulting HbA1c levels correspond with international recommendations. All other countries should provide Intermediate care, while working toward the provision of comprehensive care.

Insights from the WHO and National Lists of Essential Medicines: Focus on Pediatric Diabetes Care in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Access to essential medicines in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes is limited in resource-limited countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains two non-binding lists of essential medicines (EMLs) which are often used as a template for developing national EMLs. METHODS: We compared a previously published master list of medicines for pediatric endocrinology and diabetes with the WHO EMLs and national EMLs for countries within the WHO African region. To better understand actual access to medicines by patients, we focused on diabetes and surveyed pediatric endocrinologists from 5 countries and assessed availability and true cost for insulin and glucagon. RESULTS: Most medicines that are essential in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes were included in the national EMLs. However, essential medicines, such as fludrocortisone, were present in less than 30% of the national EMLs despite being recommended by the WHO. Pediatric endocrinologists from the 5 focus countries reported significant variation in terms of availability and public access to insulin, as well as differences between urban and rural areas. Except for Botswana, glucagon was rarely available. There was no significant relationship between Gross National Income and the number of medicines included in the national EMLs. CONCLUSIONS: Governments in resource-limited countries could take further steps to improve EMLs and access to medicines such as improved collaboration between health authorities, the pharmaceutical industry, patient groups, health professionals, and capacity-building programs such as Paediatric Endocrinology Training Centres for Africa.

The IDF Life for a Child Program Index of diabetes care for children and youth.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Care for children and youth with diabetes varies markedly around the world. We developed a standardized, reproducible measure that can be used to document and compare critical factors influencing treatment outcomes. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 36 multiple-choice questions covering major components of care (such as insulin therapy, blood glucose monitoring, etc.) was sent to 75 countries: 43 under-resourced countries where the International Diabetes Federation's Life for a Child Program operates, and 32 others (mainly developed nations). Results for each country were scaled to a score with a range of 0-100. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71 countries. Scores varied widely and were highly correlated to per capita gross domestic product (R(2) = 0.72, P < 0.001) and health expenditure (R(2) = 0.77, P < 0.001). For the 37 low- and lower-middle income countries, only two had complete government provision of human insulin and none of blood glucose test strips. Marked differences according to income were also found for access to home refrigeration; usage of insulin pens, multiple daily injections, pumps, glucagon and ketone strips; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing; and complications screening. CONCLUSIONS: The index is a comprehensive, easily administered survey instrument. It demonstrated stark differences in access to numerous components of care necessary in achieving good outcomes for children and youth with diabetes.