Skip to main content
. 2010 Aug 15;7(5):A109.

Table.

Base Case Values for Decision Model and Ranges Examined in Sensitivity Analyses of Efforts to Reduce Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease, Southwestern Pennsylvania, 2005-2007

Parameter Base Case Value Type of Distribution Range Examined Reference
Cohort characteristics
Starting age, y 55 Uniform 45–65 Assumption
Women, % 75 Beta 48.2-94.0 mDPP data (8,16)
African American, % 27.1 Beta 6.5-55.8 mDPP data (8,16)
Angina, % 3.8 Beta 1.0-8.3 mDPP data (8,16)
Hypertension, treated, % 84.9 Beta 4.5-100 mDPP data (8,16)
History of cardiac arrest or MI, % 1.9 Beta 0.5-4.2 mDPP data (8,16)
History of stroke, % 1.9 Beta 0.5-4.2 mDPP data (8,16)
Peripheral vascular disease, % 4.7 Beta 1.3-10.2 mDPP data (8,16)
Probabilities, %
Probability of screening risk-factor–positive 31.0 Beta 7.2-63.5 mDPP data (8,16)
Probability of enrollment 47.0 Beta 9.2-86.7 mDPP data (8,16)
Yearly probability of acquiring diabetes, %
Not in prevention program, risk-factor–positive 10.8 Beta 2.9-23.3 Herman et al (12)
Not in prevention program, risk-factor–negative 0.4 Beta 0.05-0.75 Fox et al (20)
In prevention program 4.8 Beta 1.3-10.5 Herman et al (12)
Yearly probability of becoming risk-factor–positive 4.0 Beta 1.0-8.7 Orchard et al (19)
Yearly probability of progressing to complicated diabetes 7.5 Beta 2.0-16.3 Herman et al (12), Kothari et al (21), Wilson et al (22)
Yearly probability of reducing risk factors, %
Not in prevention program 12.1 Beta 3.2-25.9 Orchard et al (19)
In prevention program 16.2 Beta 4.2-34.4 mDPP data (8,16)
Relative risk of death
Risk-factor–positive 1.7 Log-normal 1.5-1.8 Lakka et al (23)
Risk-factor–negative 1.0 NA Not varied Assumption
Stable diabetes 2.0 Log-normal 1.8-2.2 Moss et al (24)
Complicated diabetes 2.4 Log-normal 2.2-2.6 Fuller et al (25)
Utilities
No diabetes, risk-factor–positive, not in prevention program 0.73 Uniform 0.71-0.75 Herman et al (12), Coffey et al (26)
No diabetes, risk-factor–positive, in prevention program 0.75 Uniform 0.73-0.77 Herman et al (12), Coffey et al (26)
No diabetes, risk-factor–negative 0.88 Uniform 0.84-0.92 Gold et al (27)
Stable diabetes 0.69 Uniform 0.66-0.72 Herman et al (12), Coffey et al (26), Zhou et al (28)
Complicated diabetes 0.59 Uniform 0.51-0.68 Herman et al (12), Coffey et al (26), Zhou et al (28)
Costs and multipliers
Screening, risk-factor–positive, $ 35 Uniform 18-53 mDPP data (8,16)
Screening, risk-factor–negative, $ 32 Uniform 16-48 mDPP data (8,16)
Prevention program, $ 219 Uniform 110-329 mDPP data (8,16)
Risk-factor–positive (yearly), $ 1,296 NA Not varied Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for female 1.14 Normal 1.05-1.25 Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for African American 0.82 Normal 0.70-0.95 Herman et al (12)
Risk-factor–negative (yearly), $ 616  NA Not varied MEPSa
Base diabetes cost (yearly), $ 1,684 NA  Not varied Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for female 1.25 Normal 1.14-1.35 Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for African American 0.82 Normal 0.70-0.95 Herman et al (12)
Base complicated diabetes cost (yearly), $ 1,684 NA  Not varied Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for female 1.25 Normal 1.14-1.35 Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for African American 0.82 Normal 0.70-0.95 Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for angina 1.73 Normal 1.31-2.14 Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for hypertension, treated 1.24 Normal 1.10-1.37 Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for history of cardiac arrest or MI 1.90 Normal 1.64-2.17 Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for history of stroke 1.30 Normal 1.20-1.40 Herman et al (12)
  Multiplier for peripheral vascular disease 1.31 Normal 1.10-1.53 Herman et al (12)

Abbreviations: mDPP, modified Diabetes Prevention Program; MI, myocardial infarction; NA, not applicable; MEPS, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

a

The yearly cost for risk-factor–negative ($616) was computed using the subset of MEPS respondents who had incurred health care expenses during the year and who reported a perceived health status of good, very good, or excellent (29).