Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Educator-Delivered Lifestyle Modification for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention in a Young Healthy Population in Sri Lanka: A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation and Economic Model.

Background: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of an intensive lifestyle modification (LSM) intervention delivered by peer educators for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a young at-risk population in a low healthcare resource setting.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term and long-term cost effectiveness of an intensive lifestyle modification intervention for type 2 diabetes prevention in a young urban at-risk population in Sri Lanka.

Methods: This was an economic evaluation using cost and outcome data from a randomized controlled trial. We randomized 3539 healthy individuals aged 5-40 years with risk factors for type 2 diabetes to either 3-monthly (P-LSM n = 1727) or 12-monthly (C-LSM n = 1812) peer-educator advice aimed at reducing weight, improving diet, reducing psychological stress and increasing physical activity. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a health system perspective with outcomes expressed as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Intervention costs and outcomes were collected during a median clinical trial period of 3 years and extrapolated to a lifetime horizon using economic modelling. Uncertainty in the lifetime model was explored by structural and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: The costs of the more intensive peer support programme were partially offset by reduced costs of type 2 diabetes complications recorded over the trial period and completely offset by lifetime cost savings of 6000 LKR. The more intensive P-LSM also averted more DALYs, estimated at 0.456 DALYs over the lifetime of participants.

Conclusions: In a young at-risk Sri Lanka population, an intensive LSM programme was cost effective, averting more DALYs at an acceptable additional cost than a much less intensive LSM programme. Early intervention in young at-risk people represents good value for money from the Sri Lankan health care payer perspective.