Skip to main content

Table 3 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and distribution of the joint cost-effect pairs in the cost-effectiveness plane

From: Economic evaluation of a lifestyle intervention in primary care to prevent type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases: a randomized controlled trial

 

Analysisa

Sample size per group

ΔC (95% CI)

ΔE (95% CI)

 

Distribution in cost-effectiveness plane (%)

  

Control

Intervention

Euros

 

ICER

NEb

SEc

SWd

NWe

T2DM risk f

Base case

300

305

−866 (-2372;370)

0.6 (-0.1;1.3)

-1416

0.6

4.1

85.9

9.4

Complete cases

117

105

−30 (-2171;1446)

0.7 (-0.4;1.7)

-44

5.1

4.4

45.0

45.5

 

Health care perspective

300

305

−5 (-316;272)

0.6 (-0.1;1.3)

−8

2.2

2.4

47.5

47.9

CVD risk g

Base case

300

305

−866 (-2372;370)

−0.1 (-0.4;0.2)

6405

8.0

74.3

15.4

2.3

Complete cases

116

104

−19 (-2253;1410)

−0.03 (-0.34;0.29)

642

29.5

27.8

21.3

21.5

 

Health care perspective

300

305

−5 (-316;272)

−0.1 (-0.4;0.2)

38

40.1

42.4

8.0

9.5

QALY

Base case

300

305

−866 (-2372;370)

0.02 (-0.02;0.05)

-50,273

8.2

76.8

12.9

2.1

Complete cases

114

98

110 (-2004;1611)

0.02 (-0.02;0.06)

4770

46.4

40.6

4.2

8.7

 

Health care perspective

300

305

−5 (-316;272)

0.02 (-0.02;0.05)

−298

40.7

44.7

5.0

9.6

  1. ΔC = mean difference in total costs between the intervention group and control group in Euros adjusted to the year 2008; ΔE = mean difference in outcome; ICER is calculated as ΔC/ΔE. ICER, Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio; NE, north-east; SE, south-east; SW, south-west; NW, north-west; T2DM, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; CVD, Cardiovascular Disease; QALY, Quality Adjusted Life Years.
  2. a The base case analysis and complete case analysis are based on the societal perspective. In the base case analysis and the analysis from the health care perspective missing data were multiply imputed. The complete cases analysis was restricted to participants with complete data on costs and the particular clinical outcome. b NE quadrant: the intervention is more effective and more costly than usual care. c SE quadrant: the intervention is more effective and less costly than usual care. d SW quadrant: the intervention is less effective and less costly than usual care. e NW quadrant: the intervention is less effective and more costly than usual care. f The at the age of 60 anticipated risk for developing T2DM in the following 9 years . g The at the age of sixty anticipated risk of CVD mortality in the following 10 years.