Cost-Effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Model Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Depression in India
Karl Emmert-Fees, Michael Laxy, Shivani A. Patel, Kavita Singh, Subramani Poongothai, Viswanathan Mohan, Lydia Chwastiak, K.M. Venkat Narayan, Rajesh Sagar, Aravind Sosale, Ranjit Mohan Anjana, GR Sridhar, Nikhil Tandon, Mohammed K. Ali
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative versus usual care in adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes and depression in India. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of a 24-month parallel, open-label, pragmatic randomized clinical trial at four urban clinics in India from multipayer and societal perspectives. The trial randomly assigned 404 patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥8.0%, systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg, or LDL cholesterol ≥130 mg/dL) and depressive symptoms (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ≥10) to collaborative care (support from nonphysician care coordinators, electronic registers, and specialist-supported case review) for 12 months, followed by 12 months of usual care or 24 months of usual care. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in Indian rupees (INR) and international dollars (Int'l-$) and the probability of cost-effectiveness using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and depression-free days (DFDs). RESULTS: From a multipayer perspective, collaborative care costed an additional INR309,558 (Int'l-$15,344) per QALY and an additional INR290.2 (Int'l-$14.4) per DFD gained compared with usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 56.4% using a willingness to pay of INR336,000 (Int'l-$16,654) per QALY (approximately three times per-capita gross domestic product). The willingness to pay per DFD to achieve a probability of cost-effectiveness >95% was INR401.6 (Int'l-$19.9). From a societal perspective, cost-effectiveness was marginally lower. In sensitivity analyses, integrating collaborative care in clinical workflows reduced incremental costs by ∼47% (ICER 162,689 per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability 89.4%), but cost-effectiveness decreased when adjusting for baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care for patients with type 2 diabetes and depression in urban India can be cost-effective, especially when integrated in clinical workflows. Long-term cost-effectiveness might be more favorable. Scalability across lower- and middle-income country settings depends on heterogeneous contextual factors.