391 Value estimation of the Diabetes Prevention Program: How well does clinical trial-based cost-effectiveness apply to the real world?

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Many economic evaluations rely on clinical trial data that may not represent real world populations and intervention effectiveness. We compare risk and cost-effectiveness for the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) clinical trial cohort and a real world population eligible for the national DPP to assess the impact of using real world data. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To produce real world (US population) representative results, we identified National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) subjects eligible for the national DPP and adjusted projections using survey weights. We used clinical predictive models to estimate individual diabetes risk, and microsimulation to estimate lifetime costs, benefits, and net monetary benefits (NMB) for lifestyle intervention and metformin. We compared results across the DPP clinical trial and NHANES populations. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Three-year risk of diabetes onset for the DPP trial population (mean of 19.7%, median of 10.3%) exceeded corresponding risk for the NHANES population (mean of 14.6%, median of 4.8%). The proportion of individuals with a three-year diabetes risk < 10% for the DPP trial population (49%) was less than the corresponding proportion for NHANES (67%). Mean NMB for metformin for the DPP trial population ($9,749) exceeded the corresponding value for NHANES ($5,391). The proportion of subjects with negative NMB was 49% for the DPP trial population and 67% for NHANES. Lifestyle intervention had a mean NMB of $34,889 for the DPP trial population and $28,652 for NHANES. Only 20% of the NHANES population eligible for national DPP met inclusion/exclusion criteria for the DPP trial. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Real world populations eligible for the national DPP include a greater proportion of low-risk individuals, and for these people, prevention programs may confer smaller benefits. Technology assessments based on clinical trial data should be revised using real world population and treatment effect data.