Table 3

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and distribution of the joint cost-effect pairs in the cost-effectiveness plane
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 riskf 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 riskg 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

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.

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.

van Wier et al.

van Wier et al. BMC Family Practice 2013 14:45   doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-45

Open Data