Cost saving analysis of prediabetes intervention modalities in comparison with inaction using Markov state transition model-A multiregional case study.

BACKGROUND: Prediabetes management is a priority for policymakers globally, to avoid/delay type 2 diabetes (T2D) and reduce severe, costly health consequences. Countries moving from low to middle income are most at risk from the T2D "epidemic" and may find implementing preventative measures challenging; yet prevention has largely been evaluated in developed countries. METHODS: Markov cohort simulations explored costs and benefits of various prediabetes management approaches, expressed as "savings" to the public health care system, for three countries with high prediabetes prevalence and contrasting economic status (Poland, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam). Two scenarios were compared up to 15 y: "inaction" (no prediabetes intervention) and "intervention" with metformin extended release (ER), intensive lifestyle change (ILC), ILC with metformin (ER), or ILC with metformin (ER) "titration." RESULTS: T2D was the highest-cost health state at all time horizons due to resource use, and inaction produced the highest T2D costs, ranging from 9% to 34% of total health care resource costs. All interventions reduced T2D versus inaction, the most effective being ILC + metformin (ER) "titration" (39% reduction at 5 y). Metformin (ER) was the only strategy that produced net saving across the time horizon; however, relative total health care system costs of other interventions vs inaction declined over time up to 15 y. Viet Nam was most sensitive to cost and parameter changes via a one-way sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin (ER) and lifestyle interventions for prediabetes offer promise for reducing T2D incidence. Metformin (ER) could reduce T2D patient numbers and health care costs, given concerns regarding adherence in the context of funding/reimbursement challenges for lifestyle interventions.

Targeting of the diabetes prevention program leads to substantial benefits when capacity is constrained.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 84 million people in the USA have pre-diabetes, but only a fraction of them receive proven effective therapies to prevent type 2 diabetes. We estimated the value of prioritizing individuals at highest risk of progression to diabetes for treatment, compared to non-targeted treatment of individuals meeting inclusion criteria for the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). METHODS: Using microsimulation to project outcomes in the DPP trial population, we compared two interventions to usual care: (1) lifestyle modification and (2) metformin administration. For each intervention, we compared targeted and non-targeted strategies, assuming either limited or unlimited program capacity. We modeled the individualized risk of developing diabetes and projected diabetic outcomes to yield lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy, from which we estimated net monetary benefits (NMB) for both lifestyle and metformin versus usual care. RESULTS: Compared to usual care, lifestyle modification conferred positive benefits and reduced lifetime costs for all eligible individuals. Metformin's NMB was negative for the lowest population risk quintile. By avoiding use when costs outweighed benefits, targeted administration of metformin conferred a benefit of $500 per person. If only 20% of the population could receive treatment, when prioritizing individuals based on diabetes risk, rather than treating a 20% random sample, the difference in NMB ranged from $14,000 to $20,000 per person. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting active diabetes prevention to patients at highest risk could improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared to providing the same intervention to a similar number of patients with pre-diabetes without targeted selection.

Metformin Should Not Be Used to Treat Prediabetes.

Based on the results of the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS), in which metformin significantly decreased the development of diabetes in individuals with baseline fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of 110-125 vs. 100-109 mg/dL (6.1-6.9 vs. 5.6-6.0 mmol/L) and A1C levels 6.0-6.4% (42-46 mmol/mol) vs. <6.0% and in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus, it has been suggested that metformin should be used to treat people with prediabetes. Since the association between prediabetes and cardiovascular disease is due to the associated nonglycemic risk factors in people with prediabetes, not to the slightly increased glycemia, the only reason to treat with metformin is to delay or prevent the development of diabetes. There are three reasons not to do so. First, approximately two-thirds of people with prediabetes do not develop diabetes, even after many years. Second, approximately one-third of people with prediabetes return to normal glucose regulation. Third, people who meet the glycemic criteria for prediabetes are not at risk for the microvascular complications of diabetes and thus metformin treatment will not affect this important outcome. Why put people who are not at risk for the microvascular complications of diabetes on a drug (possibly for the rest of their lives) that has no immediate advantage except to lower subdiabetes glycemia to even lower levels? Rather, individuals at the highest risk for developing diabetes-i.e., those with FPG concentrations of 110-125 mg/dL (6.1-6.9 mmol/L) or A1C levels of 6.0-6.4% (42-46 mmol/mol) or women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus-should be followed closely and metformin immediately introduced only when they are diagnosed with diabetes.

Benchmarking the Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions Delaying Diabetes: A Simulation Study Based on NAVIGATOR Data.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model Version 2 (UKPDS-OM2) the impact of delaying type 2 diabetes onset on costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy using trial participants who developed diabetes in the NAVIGATOR (Nateglinide And Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We simulated the impact of delaying diabetes onset by 1-9 years, utilizing data from the 3,058 of 9,306 NAVIGATOR trial participants who developed type 2 diabetes. Costs and utility weights associated with diabetes and diabetes-related complications were obtained for the U.S. and U.K. settings, with costs expressed in 2017 values. We estimated discounted lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Gains in QALYs increased from 0.02 (U.S. setting, 95% CI 0.01, 0.03) to 0.15 (U.S. setting, 95% CI 0.10, 0.21) as the imposed time to diabetes onset was increased from 1 to 9 years, respectively. Savings in complication costs increased from $1,388 (95% CI $1,092, $1,669) for a 1-year delay to $8,437 (95% CI $6,611, $10,197) for a delay of 9 years. Interventions costing up to $567-$2,680 and £201-£947 per year would be cost-effective at $100,000 per QALY and £20,000 per QALY thresholds in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, as the modeled delay in diabetes onset was increased from 1 to 9 years. CONCLUSIONS: Simulating a hypothetical diabetes-delaying intervention provides guidance concerning the maximum cost and minimum delay in diabetes onset needed to be cost-effective. These results can inform the ongoing debate about diabetes prevention strategies and the design of future intervention studies.

Burden of disease of type 2 diabetes mellitus: cost of illness and quality of life estimated using the Maastricht Study.

AIMS: To estimate the societal costs and quality of life of people with type 2 diabetes and to compare these results with those of people with normal glucose tolerance or prediabetes. METHODS: Data from 2915 individuals from the population-based Maastricht Study were included. Costs were assessed through a resource-use questionnaire completed by the participants; cost prices were based on Dutch costing guidelines. Quality of life was expressed in utilities using the Dutch EuroQol 5D-3L questionnaire and the SF-36 health survey. Based on normal fasting glucose and 2-h plasma glucose values, participants were classified into three groups: normal glucose tolerance (n = 1701); prediabetes (n = 446); or type 2 diabetes (n = 768). RESULTS: Participants with type 2 diabetes had on average 2.2 times higher societal costs than those with normal glucose tolerance (€3,006 and €1,377 per 6 months, respectively) and had lower utilities (0.77 and 0.81, respectively). No significant differences were found between participants with normal glucose tolerance and those with prediabetes. Subgroup analyses showed that higher age, being female and having two or more diabetes-related complications resulted in higher costs (P < 0.05) and lower utilities. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that people with type 2 diabetes have substantially higher societal costs and lower quality of life than people with normal glucose tolerance. The results provide important input for future model-based economic evaluations and for policy decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness of Diabetes Prevention Interventions Targeting High-risk Individuals and Whole Populations: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D) among high-risk individuals and whole populations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Interventions targeting high-risk individuals are those that identify people at high risk of developing T2D and then treat them with either lifestyle or metformin interventions. Population-based prevention strategies are those that focus on the whole population regardless of the level of risk, creating public health impact through policy implementation, campaigns, and other environmental strategies. We systematically searched seven electronic databases for studies published in English between 2008 and 2017. We grouped lifestyle interventions targeting high-risk individuals by delivery method and personnel type. We used the median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or cost saved to measure the CE of interventions. We used the $50,000/QALY threshold to determine whether an intervention was cost-effective or not. ICERs are reported in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Our review included 39 studies: 28 on interventions targeting high-risk individuals and 11 targeting whole populations. Both lifestyle and metformin interventions in high-risk individuals were cost-effective from a health care system or a societal perspective, with median ICERs of $12,510/QALY and $17,089/QALY, respectively, compared with no intervention. Among lifestyle interventions, those that followed a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) curriculum had a median ICER of $6,212/QALY, while those that did not follow a DPP curriculum had a median ICER of $13,228/QALY. Compared with lifestyle interventions delivered one-on-one or by a health professional, those offered in a group setting or provided by a combination of health professionals and lay health workers had lower ICERs. Among population-based interventions, taxing sugar-sweetened beverages was cost-saving from both the health care system and governmental perspectives. Evaluations of other population-based interventions-including fruit and vegetable subsidies, community-based education programs, and modifications to the built environment-showed inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the T2D prevention interventions included in our review were found to be either cost-effective or cost-saving. Our findings may help decision makers set priorities and allocate resources for T2D prevention in real-world settings.

Selecting the optimal risk threshold of diabetes risk scores to identify high-risk individuals for diabetes prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: Although risk scores to predict type 2 diabetes exist, cost-effectiveness of risk thresholds to target prevention interventions are unknown. We applied cost-effectiveness analysis to identify optimal thresholds of predicted risk to target a low-cost community-based intervention in the USA. METHODS: We used a validated Markov-based type 2 diabetes simulation model to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of alternative thresholds of diabetes risk. Population characteristics for the model were obtained from NHANES 2001-2004 and incidence rates and performance of two noninvasive diabetes risk scores (German diabetes risk score, GDRS, and ARIC 2009 score) were determined in the ARIC and Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for increasing risk score thresholds. Two scenarios were assumed: 1-stage (risk score only) and 2-stage (risk score plus fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test (threshold 100 mg/dl) in the high-risk group). RESULTS: In ARIC and CHS combined, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the GDRS and the ARIC 2009 score were 0.691 (0.677-0.704) and 0.720 (0.707-0.732), respectively. The optimal threshold of predicted diabetes risk (ICER < $50,000/QALY gained in case of intervention in those above the threshold) was 7% for the GDRS and 9% for the ARIC 2009 score. In the 2-stage scenario, ICERs for all cutoffs ≥ 5% were below $50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Intervening in those with ≥ 7% diabetes risk based on the GDRS or ≥ 9% on the ARIC 2009 score would be cost-effective. A risk score threshold ≥ 5% together with elevated FPG would also allow targeting interventions cost-effectively.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Prediabetes Intervention Package (PIP) in primary care: a New Zealand pilot programme.

AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the Prediabetes Intervention Package (PIP), a multilevel primary care nurse-delivered prediabetes lifestyle intervention programme was piloted in Hawke's Bay, New Zealand. The goal of the intervention was weight loss and prevention of progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness evaluation was conducted from a health funder perspective using 2015 NZ$ with costs and per kilogram (kg) weight change at six months analysed at an individual participant level. Missing six-month data were imputed using multiple imputation adjusted for baseline characteristics. Change in weight was calculated following intention-to-treat principles. Three lower-cost scenarios were modelled. RESULTS: Using multiple imputation and bootstrapping, there was a statistically significant median difference in weight between the intervention and control groups of 1.87kg (95% CI 0.54, 3.15) at six months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was NZ$170.90 (95% CI 100.37, 553.93) per 1kg of weight loss. ICERs for the lower-cost scenarios ranged from NZ$95.33 (95% CI 56.12, 308.36) to $NZ120.74 (95% CI 71.04, 391.60). CONCLUSION: The primary care nurse-delivered PIP intervention is likely to be a cost-effective weight loss strategy for preventing or delaying progression to type 2 diabetes in people with prediabetes.

Food 4 Health - He Oranga Kai: Assessing the efficacy, acceptability and economic implications of Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 and ß-glucan to improve glycated haemoglobin, metabolic health, and general well-being in adults with pre-diabetes: study protocol for a 2 × 2 factorial design, parallel group, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial, with embedded qualitative study and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: The rates of pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus are increasing worldwide, producing significant burdens for individuals, families, and healthcare systems. In New Zealand, type 2 diabetes mellitus and pre-diabetes disproportionally affect Maori, Pacific, and South Asian peoples. This research evaluates the efficacy, acceptability, and economic impact of a probiotic capsule and a prebiotic cereal intervention in adults with pre-diabetes on metabolic and mental health and well-being outcomes. METHODS: Eligible adults (n = 152) aged 18-80 years with pre-diabetes (glycated haemoglobin 41-49 mmol/mol) will be enrolled in a 2 × 2 factorial design, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Computer-generated block randomization will be performed independently. Interventions are capsulated Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 (6 × 109 colony-forming units/day) (A) and cereal containing 4 g ß-glucan (B), placebo capsules (O1), and calorie-matched control cereal (O2). Eligible participants will receive 6 months intervention in the following groups: AB, AO1, BO2, and O1O2. The primary outcome is glycated haemoglobin after 6 months. Follow-up at 9 months will assess the durability of response. Secondary outcomes are glycated haemoglobin after 3 and 9 months, fasting glucose, insulin resistance, blood pressure, body weight, body mass index, and blood lipid levels. General well-being and quality of life will be measured by the Short-Form Health Survey 36 and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 at 6 and 9 months. Outcome assessors will be blind to capsule allocation. An accompanying qualitative study will include 24 face-to-face semistructured interviews with an ethnically balanced sample from the ß-glucan arms at 2 months, participant focus groups at 6 months, and three health professional focus groups. These will explore how interventions are adopted, their acceptability, and elicit factors that may support the uptake of interventions. A simulation model of the pre-diabetic New Zealand population will be used to estimate the likely impact in quality-adjusted life years and health system costs of the interventions if rolled out in New Zealand. DISCUSSION: This study will examine the efficacy of interventions in a population with pre-diabetes. Qualitative components provide rich description of views on the interventions. When combined with the economic analysis, the study will provide insights into how to translate the interventions into practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000990325. Prospectively registered on 10 July 2017.

Decision models of prediabetes populations: A systematic review.

AIMS: With evidence supporting the use of preventive interventions for prediabetes populations and the use of novel biomarkers to stratify the risk of progression, there is a need to evaluate their cost-effectiveness across jurisdictions. Our aim is to summarize and assess the quality and validity of decision models and model-based economic evaluations of populations with prediabetes, to evaluate their potential use for the assessment of novel prevention strategies and to discuss the knowledge gaps, challenges and opportunities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, EconLit and NHS EED between 2000 and 2018 for studies reporting computer simulation models of the natural history of individuals with prediabetes and/or we used decision models to evaluate the impact of treatment strategies on these populations. Data were extracted following PRISMA guidelines and assessed using modelling checklists. Two reviewers independently assessed 50% of the titles and abstracts to determine whether a full text review was needed. Of these, 10% was assessed by each reviewer to cross-reference the decision to proceed to full review. Using a standardized form and double extraction, each of four reviewers extracted 50% of the identified studies. RESULTS: A total of 29 published decision models that simulate prediabetes populations were identified. Studies showed large variations in the definition of prediabetes and model structure. The inclusion of complications in prediabetes (n = 8) and type 2 diabetes (n = 17) health states also varied. A minority of studies simulated annual changes in risk factors (glycaemia, HbA1c, blood pressure, BMI, lipids) as individuals progressed in the models (n = 7) and accounted for heterogeneity among individuals with prediabetes (n = 7). CONCLUSIONS: Current prediabetes decision models have considerable limitations in terms of their quality and validity and do not allow evaluation of stratified strategies using novel biomarkers, highlighting a clear need for more comprehensive prediabetes decision models.

Prevention of Diabetes Mellitus in Patients With Prediabetes.

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in patients with diabetes. Consequently, as antidiabetic medications have demonstrated cardiovascular benefit, cardiologists have been asked to weigh in regarding antidiabetic therapy. The cardiologist's role will continue to grow as antidiabetic agents with cardiovascular benefit are being studied in prediabetes as part of an evolving clinical environment. Still, current guidelines primarily recommend high-intensity lifestyle intervention or metformin for diabetes prevention. Considering that many patients cared for by a cardiologist will have prediabetes, we propose herein that cardiologists can also facilitate diabetes prevention through direct intervention, referring patients to community-based high-intensity lifestyle interventions, and through advocacy, policy, and additional guideline development. The most important messaging for a patient is that avoiding new-onset diabetes can reduce microvascular disease, reduce healthcare cost, and improve health-related quality of life. Moreover, as the mortality risk of patients with a history of myocardial infarction and diabetes is almost double that of patients with a history of myocardial infarction who are free of diabetes, there is even more potential benefit in delaying and/or avoiding diabetes in patients with cardiovascular disease. Despite these important health advantages, the implementation of diabetes prevention strategies is lagging. The under implementation may be exaggerated by published opinions conflicting major guidelines in addition to conflicting guideline recommendations. In conclusion, we propose cardiologists can play a key role in preventing diabetes and aligning practice patterns with guideline recommendations among endocrinology, cardiology, and primary care stake holders.

Effects of lifestyle changes on adults with prediabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention, compared with treatment as usual in people with prediabetes as defined by the American Diabetes Association. For older studies, we used the 1985 World Health Organization definition. METHODS: We systematically searched multiple electronic databases and referenced lists of pertinent review articles from January 1980 through November 2015. We performed an update search in MEDLINE on April 26, 2017. Based on a priori established eligibility criteria, we dually reviewed the literature, extracted data, and rated the risk of bias of included studies with validated checklists. To assess the efficacy of lifestyle intervention to prevent or delay further progression to type 2 diabetes, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULT: Pooled results of 16 randomized controlled trials showed that people with prediabetes who received lifestyle intervention had a lower rate of progression to type 2 diabetes after one (4% vs. 10%, RR 0.46 [CI 0.32, 0.66]) and three years of follow-up (14% vs. 23%, RR 0.64 [95% CI 0.53, 0.77]). The majority of the studies also showed a greater weight loss in lifestyle intervention participants, with a great variation between studies. Costs per quality-adjusted life-year were lower when the benefits of lifestyle intervention were analyzed over a lifelong time horizon compared to only the period of lifestyle intervention (three years) or to modeling over a ten-year period. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle intervention is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective measure to reduce the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes in people diagnosed with prediabetes. More research is necessary to compare the efficacy of various modes, frequencies, and intensities of lifestyle intervention across studies.

Identifying Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes in Asymptomatic Youth: Should HbA1c Be Used as a Diagnostic Approach?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Because the incidence of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in children is rising, routine screening of those at risk is recommended. In 2010, the ADA made the recommendation to include hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a diagnostic test for diabetes, in addition to the oral glucose tolerance test or fasting plasma glucose. Our objective was to assess the pediatric literature with regard to HbA1c test performance and discuss advantages and disadvantages of use of the test for diagnostic purposes. RECENT FINDINGS: HbA1c has a number of advantages, including elimination of the need for fasting, lower variability, assay standardization, and long-term association with future development of diabetes. It also has many drawbacks. It can be affected by a number of non-glycemic factors, including red blood cell turnover, hemoglobinopathies, medications, race, and age. In particular, it performs differently in children compared with adults, generally with lower sensitivity for prediabetes (as low as 0-5% in children vs 23-27% in adults) and lower area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (0.53 vs 0.73 for prediabetes), and it has lower efficacy at a higher cost, compared with other tests of glycemia. Finally, HbA1c may perform very differently across diverse populations according to race/ethnicity; in Chinese populations, the proportion of individuals classified with prediabetes based on HbA1c predominates compared with IFG (77% for HbA1c vs 27.7% for IFG), whereas in US populations, it is the opposite (24.8% for HbA1c vs 80.1% for FPG). HbA1c is controversial because although it is convenient, it is not a true measure of glycemia. The interpretation of HbA1c results requires a nuanced understanding that many primary care physicians who are ordering the test in greater numbers do not possess. Alternative markers of glycemia may hold promise for the future but are not yet endorsed for use in practice. Further studies are needed to determine appropriate thresholds for screening tests and the long-term impact of screening and identification.

Progression to Type 2 Diabetes and Its Effect on Health Care Costs in Low-Income and Insured Patients with Prediabetes: A Retrospective Study Using Medicaid Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Prediabetes is a high-risk factor for progression to diabetes. Without lifestyle changes, such as weight loss and moderate physical activity, 15%-30% of people with prediabetes are projected to develop type 2 diabetes within 5 years. Progression to diabetes increases the financial burden significantly for patients and health care systems. Populations with low socioeconomic status are associated with a higher risk of diabetes. However, knowledge is limited about the effect of transition to diabetes on future costs incurred in low-income populations. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe the characteristics of low-income and insured patients with prediabetes and (b) examine the effect of progression to type 2 diabetes on health care utilization and costs. METHODS: This study used South Carolina Medicaid claims data (2009-2014) to identify patients (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed prediabetes. All patients were enrolled in Medicaid continuously for at least 1 year before and after the diagnosis of prediabetes and were followed for at least 1 year and up to 6 years. The time to progression to type 2 diabetes was measured by a Kaplan Meier curve, and risk factors associated with onset of type 2 diabetes were identified by Cox regression. Generalized linear models were applied to assess the effect of progression to type 2 diabetes on total health care costs during the first 3-year period. RESULTS: A total of 7,650 patients with prediabetes met the study criteria. During the follow-up period, 30.3% of the study population developed type 2 diabetes within 3 years. Older age, African-American race, fee-for-service plan, comorbid hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia were associated with higher risk for onset of type 2 diabetes. Compared with patients who did not progress to type 2 diabetes, the progression to type 2 diabetes increased total health care costs by 22.1% (P < 0.001), 39.1% (P < 0.001), and 47.6% (P < 0.001) during the first 3 years after adjusting for demographic and comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Age, race, type of Medicaid plan, and diabetes-related comorbidities were associated with risk for progression of prediabetes. Progression to type 2 diabetes significantly increased total health care costs in the first 3 years. Early detection and intervention to prevent or delay onset of type 2 diabetes are needed to control health care utilization and costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Small Pharmacy Awards for Research and Collaboration, Presbyterian College. The funding resource had no role in the design and conduct of the study, analysis or interpretation of the data, or the preparation or final approval of the manuscript before publication. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Wu, Ward, and Lu, along with Threatt. Wu took the lead in data collection, along with Ward and Lu, with assistance from Threat. Data interpretation was provided by Wu, Ward, Threatt, and Lu. The manuscript was written and revised by Wu, Ward, and Threatt, along with Lu.

Medical Care Expenditures for Individuals with Prediabetes: The Potential Cost Savings in Reducing the Risk of Developing Diabetes.

The United States has 86 million adults with prediabetes. Individuals with prediabetes can prevent or delay the development of type 2 diabetes through lifestyle modifications such as participation in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), thereby mitigating the medical and economic burdens associated with diabetes. A cohort analysis of a commercially insured population was conducted using individual-level claims data from Truven Health MarketScan® Lab Database to identify adults with prediabetes, track whether they develop diabetes, and compare medical expenditures for those who are newly diagnosed with diabetes to those who are not. This study then illustrates how reducing the risk of developing diabetes by participation in an evidence-based lifestyle change program could yield both positive net savings on medical care expenditures and return on investment (ROI). Annual expenditures are found to be nearly one third higher for those who develop diabetes in subsequent years relative to those who do not transition from prediabetes to diabetes, with an average difference of $2671 per year. At that cost differential, the 3-year ROI for a National DPP is estimated to be as high as 42%. The results show the importance and economic benefits of participation in lifestyle intervention programs to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes.

Perceptions of the Healthfulness of Foods of New Zealand Adults Living With Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate dietary perceptions of adults with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Three discussion groups (n = 12) were conducted to investigate how participants source dietary information and evaluate the healthfulness of foods. Participants were men and women with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. White board notes were photographed and audio recordings transcribed. Codes were applied and themes generated using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: (1) perception of food components, (2) factors perceived to influence the healthfulness of foods, (3) perceptions of dietary information, and (4) challenges to forming accurate perceptions. Participants perceived the healthfulness of food to be influenced largely by carbohydrates, fat, and sugar. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Perception of the healthfulness of food varied among participants and at times was contrary to dietary guidelines. Participants were wary of dietary advice and sought consistent, reliable, and up-to-date sources of information to guide food choices.

Socio-Economic Inequality of Chronic Non-Communicable Diseases in Bangladesh.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a major public health challenge, and undermine social and economic development in much of the developing world, including Bangladesh. Epidemiologic evidence on the socioeconomic status (SES)-related pattern of NCDs remains limited in Bangladesh. This study assessed the relationship between three chronic NCDs and SES among the Bangladeshi population, paying particular attention to the differences between urban and rural areas. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Data from the 2011 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey were used for this study. Using a concentration index (CI), we measured relative inequality across pre-diabetes, diabetes, pre-hypertension, hypertension, and BMI (underweight, normal weight, and overweight/obese) in urban and rural areas in Bangladesh. A CI and its associated curve can be used to identify whether socioeconomic inequality exists for a given health variable. In addition, we estimated the health achievement index, integrating mean coverage and the distribution of coverage by rural and urban populations. RESULTS: Socioeconomic inequalities were observed across diseases and risk factors. Using CI, significant inequalities observed for pre-hypertension (CI = 0.09, p = 0.001), hypertension (CI = 0.10, p = 0.001), pre-diabetes (CI = -0.01, p = 0.005), diabetes (CI = 0.19, p<0.001), and overweight/obesity (CI = 0.45, p<0.001). In contrast to the high prevalence of the chronic health conditions among the urban richest, a significant difference in CI was observed for pre-hypertension (CI = -0.20, p = 0.001), hypertension (CI = -0.20, p = 0.005), pre-diabetes (CI = -0.15, p = 0.005), diabetes (CI = -0.26, p = 0.004) and overweight/obesity (CI = 0.25, p = 0.004) were observed more among the low wealth quintiles of rural population. In the same vein, the poorest rural households had more co-morbidities compared to the richest rural households (p = 0.003), and prevalence of co-morbidities was much higher for the richest urban households compared to the poorest urban households. On the other hand in rural the "disachievement" of health indicators is more noticeable than the urban ones. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate the high burden of selected NCDs among the low wealth quintile populations in rural areas and wealthy populations in urban areas. Particular attentions may be necessary to address the problem of NCDs among these groups.

Comparison of active treatments for impaired glucose regulation: a Salford Royal Foundation Trust and Hitachi collaboration (CATFISH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is highly prevalent and contributes to significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Behaviour change interventions that target health and lifestyle factors associated with the onset of diabetes can delay progression to diabetes, but many approaches rely on intensive one-to-one contact by specialists. Health coaching is an approach based on motivational interviewing that can potentially deliver behaviour change interventions by non-specialists at a larger scale. This trial protocol describes a randomized controlled trial (CATFISH) that tests whether a web-enhanced telephone health coaching intervention (IGR3) is more acceptable and efficient than a telephone-only health coaching intervention (IGR2) for people with prediabetes (impaired glucose regulation). METHODS: CATFISH is a two-parallel group, single-centre individually randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants are patients aged ≥18 years with impaired glucose regulation (HbA1c concentration between 42 and 47 mmol/mol), have access to a telephone and home internet and have been referred to an existing telephone health coaching service at Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK. Participants who give written informed consent will be randomized remotely (via a clinical trials unit) to either the existing pathway (IGR2) or the new web-enhanced pathway (IGR3) for 9 months. The primary outcome measure is patient acceptability at 9 months, determined using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures at 9 months are: cost of delivery of IGR2 and IGR3, mental health, quality of life, patient activation, self-management, weight (kg), HbA1c concentration, and body mass index. All outcome measures will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative process evaluation will explore the experiences of participants and providers with a focus on understanding usability of interventions, mechanisms of behaviour change, and impact of context on delivery and user acceptability. Qualitative data will be analyzed using Framework. DISCUSSION: The CATFISH trial will provide a pragmatic assessment of whether a web-based information technology platform can enhance acceptability of a telephone health coaching intervention for people with prediabetes. The data will prove critical in understanding the role of web applications to improve engagement with evidence-based approaches to preventing diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16534814 . Registered on 7 February 2016.