Cost-effectiveness analysis of cognitive behaviour therapy for treatment of minor or mild-major depression in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: study protocol for the economic evaluation alongside the MIND-DIA randomized controlled trial (MIND-DIA CEA)

How do patients with diabetes report their comorbidities? Comparison with administrative data

AIMS

Patients with diabetes are probably often unaware of their comorbidities. We estimated agreement between self-reported comorbidities and administrative data.

METHODS

In a random sample of 464 diabetes patients, data from a questionnaire asking about the presence of 14 comorbidities closely related to diabetes were individually linked with statutory health insurance data.

RESULTS

Specificities were >97%, except cardiac insufficiency (94.5%), eye diseases (93.8%), peripheral arterial disease (92.6%), hypertension (90.9%), and peripheral neuropathy (85.8%). Sensitivities were <60%, except amputation (100%), hypertension (83.1%), and myocardial infarction (67.2%). A few positive predictive values were >90% (hypertension, myocardial infarction, and eye disease), and six were below 70%. Six negative predictive values were >90%, and two <70% (hypertension and eye disease). Total agreement was between 42.7% (eye disease) and 100% (dialysis and amputation). Overall, substantial agreement was observed for three morbidities (kappa 0.61-0.80: hypertension, myocardial infarction, and amputation). Moderate agreement (kappa 0.41-0.60) was estimated for angina pectoris, heart failure, stroke, peripheral neuropathy, and kidney disease. Factors associated with agreement were the number of comorbidities, diabetes duration, age, sex, and education.

CONCLUSIONS

Myocardial infarction and amputation were well reported by patients as comorbidities; eye diseases and foot ulceration rather poorly, particularly in older, male, or less educated patients. Patient information needs improving.

Agreement found between self-reported and health insurance data on physician visits comparing different recall lengths

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the impact of different recall lengths on agreement between self-reported physician visits and those documented in health insurance data applying an experimental design.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We randomly assigned 432 patients with diabetes to one of two versions of a written survey, each asking about the number of physician visits over a 3- or 6-month recall period. Health insurance data were linked individually.

RESULTS

In both groups, the mean number of self-reported physician visits per month was lower than in the insurance data, with a larger difference in the 6-month group (-0.9; 95% CI -1.0, -0.7) than in the 3-month group (-0.5; -0.7; -0.2), difference between the two groups: 0.4 (0.1-0.7; P = 0.009). The percentage of participants with correct reporting was small and did not differ largely between the two groups (6.5% and 9.3%). However, there was more overreporting in the 3-month group (25.6% vs. 11.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter recall periods may produce more accurate results when estimating the mean number of physician visits. However, this may be driven not by a more accurate reporting, but by a higher proportion of respondents that overreported and a lower proportion of respondents that underreported, when compared to the longer reporting period.

Psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in patients with diabetes mellitus and depression

BACKGROUND

Depression occurs frequently in patients with diabetes mellitus and is associated with a poor prognosis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in patients with diabetes and depression.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for records to December 2011. We searched CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ISRCTN Register and clinicaltrials.gov. We examined reference lists of included RCTs and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in adults with diabetes and depression. Primary outcomes were depression and glycaemic control. Secondary outcomes were adherence to diabetic treatment regimens, diabetes complications, death from any cause, healthcare costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently examined the identified publications for inclusion and extracted data from included studies. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to compute overall estimates of treatment outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

The database search identified 3963 references. Nineteen trials with 1592 participants were included. Psychological intervention studies (eight trials, 1122 participants, duration of therapy three weeks to 12 months, follow-up after treatment zero to six months) showed beneficial effects on short (i.e. end of treatment), medium (i.e. one to six months after treatment) and long-term (i.e. more than six months after treatment) depression severity (range of standardised mean differences (SMD) -1.47 to -0.14; eight trials). However, between-study heterogeneity was substantial and meta-analyses were not conducted. Short-term depression remission rates (OR 2.88; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.58 to 5.25; P = 0.0006; 647 participants; four trials) and medium-term depression remission rates (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.44 to 4.32; P = 0.001; 296 participants; two trials) were increased in psychological interventions compared to usual care. Evidence regarding glycaemic control in psychological intervention trials was heterogeneous and inconclusive. QoL did not improve significantly based on the results of three psychological intervention trials compared to usual care. Healthcare costs and adherence to diabetes and depression medication were examined in only one study and reliable conclusions cannot be drawn. Diabetes complications and death from any cause have not been investigated in the included psychological intervention trials.With regards to the comparison of pharmacological interventions versus placebo (eight trials; 377 participants; duration of intervention three weeks to six months, no follow-up after treatment) there was a moderate beneficial effect of antidepressant medication on short-term depression severity (all studies: SMD -0.61; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.27; P = 0.0004; 306 participants; seven trials; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI): SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.13; P = 0.003; 241 participants; five trials). Short-term depression remission was increased in antidepressant trials (OR 2.50; 95% CI 1.21 to 5.15; P = 0.01; 136 participants; three trials). Glycaemic control improved in the short term (mean difference (MD) for glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) -0.4%; 95% CI -0.6 to -0.1; P = 0.002; 238 participants; five trials). HRQoL and adherence were investigated in only one trial each showing no statistically significant differences. Medium- and long-term depression and glycaemic control outcomes as well as healthcare costs, diabetes complications and mortality have not been examined in pharmacological intervention trials. The comparison of pharmacological interventions versus other pharmacological interventions (three trials, 93 participants, duration of intervention 12 weeks, no follow-up after treatment) did not result in significant differences between the examined pharmacological agents, except for a significantly ameliorated glycaemic control in fluoxetine-treated patients (MD for HbA1c -1.0%; 95% CI -1.9 to -0.2; 40 participants) compared to citalopram in one trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychological and pharmacological interventions have a moderate and clinically significant effect on depression outcomes in diabetes patients. Glycaemic control improved moderately in pharmacological trials, while the evidence is inconclusive for psychological interventions. Adherence to diabetic treatment regimens, diabetes complications, death from any cause, health economics and QoL have not been investigated sufficiently. Overall, the evidence is sparse and inconclusive due to several low-quality trials with substantial risk of bias and the heterogeneity of examined populations and interventions.

Economic aspects of the association between diabetes and depression: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The importance of co-morbid diabetes and depression is gaining increased attention. Quantifying the socio-economic and clinical impacts of co-morbidity is important given the high costs of these diseases. This review synthesised evidence on the economic impact of co-morbidity and potential cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment strategies.

METHODS

11 databases from 1980 until June 2011 searched. In addition, websites and reference lists of studies scrutinised and hand search of selected journals performed. Reviewers independently assessed abstracts, with economic data extracted from relevant studies.

RESULTS

62 studies were identified. 47 examined the impact of co-morbidity on health care and other resource utilisation. 11 of these included productivity losses, although none quantified the impact of mortality. Most demonstrated an association between co-morbidity and increasing health service utilisation and cost. Adverse impacts on workforce participation and absenteeism were found. 15 economic evaluations were also identified. Most focused on primary care led collaborative and/or stepped care, suggesting actions may be cost effective. We did not identify any studies looking at actions to reduce the risk of diabetes in people with depression.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies are set in the US, which may be due to focus on English language databases. Few studies looked at impacts beyond one year or outside the health care system.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an evidence base demonstrating the adverse economic impacts of co-morbid diabetes and depression and potential for cost effective intervention. This evidence base might be strengthened through modelling studies on cost effectiveness using different time periods, contexts and settings.

The status of glycemic control: A cross-sectional study of outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus across primary, secondary, and tertiary hospitals in the Jiangsu province of China

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study were to determine the following: the status of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) at primary, secondary, and tertiary hospitals in the Jiangsu province of China; and the factors associated with achieving glycemic targets.

METHODS

This study, in which patients were enrolled from July 20 to 31, 2009, at 56 diabetes centers, used a multiple-stage, stratified sampling method to select a representative sample of the population with DM in Jiangsu. The sampling process was stratified by geographic and demographic regions, and by the outpatient numbers in the hospitals. A primary hospital was defined as a community medical institution that provided primary health services; a secondary hospital was a local medical institution that provided comprehensive health services; and a tertiary hospital was a regional medical institution that provided comprehensive and specialist health services. In primary hospitals, patients with DM were treated by general physicians; at secondary and tertiary hospitals, they were seen by specialists. Also, primary and tertiary hospitals treated patients in cities, whereas secondary hospitals treated patients from towns or rural areas. Patients with a medical history of type 2 DM for >6 months and registration at each diabetes center for > or = 6 months, and who were residents of Jiangsu province, were recruited. During the patient enrollment visit, information about DM complications and comorbidities, as well as DM management, was obtained by retrospectively reviewing medical records; basic patient data (eg, date of birth, sex, weight, height) were obtained by patient interview. Blood samples were collected for assessment of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at a central laboratory.

RESULTS

Of 3046 sampled subjects, the analysis was performed in 2966 subjects with complete data. The mean (SD) HbA1c value for analyzed patients was 7.2% (1.6%). The proportion of patients with tight glycemic control was 40.2% (1193/2966) when a threshold of HbA1c <6.5% was used, and 56.1% (1665/2966) when a threshold of HbA1c <7.0% was used. Compared with patients who had inadequate glycemic control, those with tight control were younger (P < 0.001), had shorter duration of DM (P < 0.001), had lower body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.005 for HbA1c <6.5% and P = 0.01 for HbA1c <7.0%), had more education (P < 0.001) and income (P = 0.003 for HbA1c <6.5% and P = 0.008 for HbA1c <7.0%), were more likely to monitor their glucose (P = NS for HbA1c <6.5% and P = 0.043 for HbA1c <7.0%) and attend DM education (P = 0.027 for HbA1c <6.5% and P = 0.002 for HbA1c <7.0%) at least once a month, and were more likely to receive oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) (P < 0.001). Age, BMI, and DM duration did not differ significantly between hospital types. Compared with primary (36.2%) and secondary hospitals (36.5%), tertiary hospitals (42.2%) had more patients with HbA1c <6.5% (P = 0.043); tertiary hospitals also had more patients with once-monthly glucose self-monitoring (P = 0.001), patients with higher income (P < 0.001) and education (P < 0.001), and those who were more likely to use > or = 2 OADs or insulin with OADs (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The overall status of glycemic control was unsatisfactory during the study period, although patients at tertiary hospitals appeared to have better control than those at primary or secondary hospitals.

Cognitive behavioural therapy in elderly type 2 diabetes patients with minor depression or mild major depression: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (MIND-DIA)

Background

The global prevalence of diabetes among adults will be 6.4% in 2010 and will increase to 7.7% by 2030. Diabetes doubles the odds of depression, and 9% of patients with diabetes are affected by depressive disorders. When subclinical depression is included, the proportion of patients who have clinically relevant depressive symptoms increases to 26%. In patients aged over 65 years, the interaction of diabetes and depression has predicted increased mortality, complications, disability, and earlier occurrence of all of these adverse outcomes. These deleterious effects were observed even in minor depression, where the risk of mortality within 7 years was 4.9 times higher compared with diabetes patients who did not have depressive symptoms. In this paper we describe the design and methods of the Minor Depression and Diabetes trial, a clinical trial within the 'Competence Network for Diabetes mellitus', which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Methods/Design

Patients' inclusion criteria are: Type 2 diabetes mellitus, 65 to 85 years of age, 3 to 6 depressive symptoms (minor depression or mild major depression). Our aim is to compare the efficacy of diabetes-specific cognitive behavioural therapy adapted for the elderly vs. intensified treatment as usual vs. a guided self-help intervention regarding improvement of health related quality of life as the primary outcome. The trial will be conducted as a multicentre, open, observer-blinded, parallel group (3 groups) randomized controlled trial. Patients will be randomized to one of the three treatment conditions. After 12 weeks of open-label therapy in all treatment conditions, both group interventions will be reduced to one session per month during the one-year long-term phase of the trial. At the one-year follow-up, all groups will be re-examined regarding the primary and secondary parameters, for example reduction of depressive symptoms, prevention of moderate/severe major depression, improvement of glycaemic control, mortality, and cost effectiveness. Depending on additional funding, the sample will be continuously observed as a prospective cohort; the primary outcome will be changed to mortality for all subsequent follow-up measurements.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials Register (ISRCTN58007098).