Report finds DPPs clinically effective and potentially cost saving over a five-year period
June 6, 2016-The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has released an Evidence Report, titled Diabetes Prevention Programs: Effectiveness and Value. This report will serve as the basis for deliberation at an upcoming meeting of the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF) on June 24, 2016 in Los Angeles, CA.
Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPPs) can be broadly defined as lifestyle interventions to promote increased physical activity, proper diet, and weight loss with the goal of preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The report evaluates the clinical effectiveness and value of DPPs with full or pending recognition from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It also provides a snapshot of the policy and practice landscape based on information gathered from interviews with key stakeholders, including program vendors, patient organizations, payers, and purchasers.
“The best treatment for a disease is to prevent it from occurring,” noted Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc, President of ICER. “The evidence appears to demonstrate that diabetes prevention programs can be effective in preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes. ICER’s analysis and CTAF’s deliberation later this month will help provide decision-makers with the information they need to identify and implement effective programs to help patients protect themselves from the risks of type 2 diabetes.”
The report reviews the evidence on three key DPP delivery models that were developed to improve the scalability of the individual, in-person counseling intervention provided in the original DPP clinical trial. The three translational models assessed in the report are 1) in-person, group coaching, 2) digital programs with a human coach, and 3) digital programs with fully-automated algorithmic coaching. The Evidence Report concludes that the in-person, group coaching model, as well as digital programs with a human coach, provide an incremental or better net health benefit as compared to usual care, while the fully automated programs provide a comparable or better net health benefit. Evidence was not sufficient to discern a difference in effect between program types. Evidence also suggested that DPPs may be cost-saving from a health system perspective over a five-year period.
ICER is committed to a transparent public engagement process to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input to our reports. After ICER’s Draft Evidence Report was released on May 9, interested stakeholders had a two-week period to provide comments. ICER staff considered these comments and made revisions to the Evidence Report as needed. The Evidence Report, as well as the accompanying voting questions, public comments, and ICER’s written response to comments, are available on the ICER website.
The Evidence Report will be the subject of the June 24th CTAF public meeting, during which the independent CTAF panel will vote on key questions raised in the report, and a policy roundtable will discuss recommendations to apply the evidence to policy and practice. During the meeting, there will be further opportunity for public comment; a limited amount of time will be available for interested stakeholders to provide an oral comment on the report. Requests to make oral comments should be submitted to firstname.lastname@example.org by 5:00 PM PT on Friday, June 17, 2016.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services. ICER’s reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that accurately reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall health care system.
ICER’s reports incorporate extensive input from all stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through three core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC) and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC). These independent panels review ICER’s reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of health care. For more information about ICER, please visit ICER’s website.