Costs of paediatric diabetes care in Germany: current situation and comparison with the year 2000.

AIMS: To estimate direct costs of paediatric Type 1 diabetes care and associated factors in Germany for the year 2007 and to compare results with the costs for the year 2000. METHODS: Our study includes clinical data and charges for any diabetes-related health care service of 14,185 continually treated subjects with paediatric diabetes aged < 20 years [52.5% male, mean age (SD) 12.1 (4.2) years], derived from a nationwide prospective patient documentation system (DPV). Health-care utilization was valued in monetary terms by using inpatient and outpatient medical fees and retail prices (perspective of the statutory health insurance). Associations between average total diabetes-related costs or various single cost categories per patient and age, sex, migration background, diabetes duration, and metabolic control were analysed by multiple regression procedures and by a two-part model for hospitalization costs. Total direct costs in the whole paediatric diabetes population in Germany were estimated. Mean costs per patient as well as total costs in the German paediatric diabetes population in 2007 were compared to 2000 costs (inflated to the year 2007). RESULTS: Mean direct diabetes-associated costs per subject were €3524 (inter-quartile range: 1831-4743). Main cost categories were hospitalization (32%), glucose self-monitoring (29%), insulin pump therapy (18%), and insulin (15%). Based on the present estimation, the total costs of paediatric diabetes care in Germany exceeded €110 million in 2007. Compared with estimates of the year 2000, average costs per patient had increased by 20% and total costs for German paediatric diabetes care by 47%. CONCLUSIONS: Direct costs for paediatric Type 1 diabetes care increased between 2000 and 2007, probably partly because of new therapeutic strategies and an increase in diabetes prevalence.

Reclassification of diabetes type in pediatric patients initially classified as type 2 diabetes mellitus: 15 years follow-up using routine data from the German/Austrian DPV database.

OBJECTIVE: To examine change of diagnosis in patients from the German/Austrian multicenter DPV (Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation) database initially classified as type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients aged ≤20 years at onset, diagnosed between 1995 and 2010 were followed for at least 6 months. Chi-square/Wilcoxon tests were performed to compare patient groups according to diabetes type after reclassification. RESULTS: From 580 study patients, 60 (10.3%) were reclassified, on average 2.4 years after initial diagnosis as follows: 23 (38.3%) as type 1 diabetes; 9 (15%) as maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY); 20 (33.3%) as "other specific diabetes forms" and 8 (13.3%) as "remission" of type 2 diabetes. Patients reclassified to type 1 were significantly younger (13.5 ± 2.9 versus 14.0 ± 2.6; p=0.027) and more often ß-cell antibody positive at disease onset (80.0% versus 31.2%; p=0.002), while patients reclassified as MODY had significantly lower BMI-SDS values than 520 patients with confirmed type 2 diabetes (2.5 ± 1.1 versus 0.9 ± 1.1; p<0.001). The latter were also considerably more obese than patients in "remission" and those reclassified to "other specific diabetes forms". CONCLUSION: About 10% of patients in the DPV database, initially diagnosed as type 2 diabetes, were retrospectively reclassified.

[Evaluation of obesity treatment in children and adolescents (EvAKuJ Study). Role of therapeutic concept, certification, and quality indicators]. / Evaluation von Therapieangeboten für adipöse Kinder und Jugendliche (EvAKuJ-Projekt). Welche Rolle spielen Behandlungskonzept, AGA-Zertifizierung und initiale Qualitätsangaben?

AIM: Different providers of obesity treatment in children and adolescents in Germany were compared using the following criteria: outpatient/inpatient; with/without AGA certification; good/less good quality. METHODS: A total of 1,916 patients (8-16.9 years) from 48 study centers were examined before (t0), after (t1), and at least 1 year after therapy (t2/3). Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, blood lipids, and psychosocial data were measured. RESULTS: Patients from inpatient rehabilitation centers were older and more obese. Patients from AGA-certified centers were more obese, and the completeness of comorbidity screening was higher. There were no differences in short- or long-term BMI reduction. "Good" treatment centers (classified after the UKE study 2004) did not differ from those centers not rated as "good" in weight reduction. Patients treated in "good" centers were more obese, and screening for comorbidity was better. No differences in drop out and loss to follow-up were found. CONCLUSION: There were only small differences between the different groups. Pronounced differences were found between the individual treatment centers. In order to improve therapy processes and outcomes, benchmarking and quality management have to be extended.