Open Access

Validation of the UKPDS 82 risk equations within the Cardiff Diabetes Model

  • Philip McEwan1, 2Email author,
  • Thomas Ward1,
  • Hayley Bennett1 and
  • Klas Bergenheim3
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation201513:12

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-015-0038-8

Received: 30 March 2015

Accepted: 22 July 2015

Published: 4 August 2015

Abstract

Background

For end-users of diabetes models that include UKPDS 82 risk equations, an important question is how well these new equations perform. Consequently, the principal objective of this study was to validate the UKPDS 82 risk equations, embedded within an established type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) model, the Cardiff Diabetes Model, to contemporary T2DM outcomes studies.

Methods

A total of 100 validation endpoints were simulated across treatment arms of twelve pivotal T2DM outcomes studies, simulation cohorts representing each validation study’s cohort profile were generated and intensive and conventional treatment arms were defined in the Cardiff Diabetes Model.

Results

Overall the validation coefficient of determination was similar between both sets of risk equations: UKPDS 68, R2 = 0.851; UKPDS 82, R2 = 0.870. Results stratified by internal and external validation studies produced MAPE of 43.77 and 37.82%, respectively, when using UKPDS 82, and MAPE of 40.49 and 53.92%, respectively when using UKPDS 68. Areas of lack of fit, as measured by MAPE were inconsistent between sets of equations with ACCORD demonstrating a noteworthy lack of fit with UKPPDS 68 (MAPE = 170.88%) and the ADDITION study for UKPDS 82 (MAPE = 89.90%).

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated that the UKPDS 82 equations exhibit similar levels of external validity to the UKPDS 68 equations with the additional benefit of enabling more diabetes related endpoints to be modeled.

Keywords

Cardiff Diabetes Model Type 2 diabetes mellitus Validation UKPDS 82

Background

The global prevalence of diabetes is estimated at 382 million and accounts for 11% ($548 billion) of the total global healthcare spend [1]. By 2035, diabetes prevalence is expected to rise by 55% to 592 million and cost the global economy $627 billion [1]. The majority of this cost is associated with the management of diabetes related macrovascular and microvascular complications: diabetes-specific therapies account for a relatively small proportion of the total cost burden, around 9–12% [2]. Nevertheless, healthcare decision makers require validated decision support tools to evaluate the expected long-term health economic benefit associated with managing diabetes. This is particularly relevant given the complexity of the diabetes specific therapeutic landscape.

Model validation in diabetes has a robust pedigree: the Mount Hood Challenge meetings are open forums for computer modelers of diabetes to discuss and compare models [35]. These forums allow modelers to identify important differences observed between predicted model outputs when using standardized inputs; discuss methodological challenges and agree on approaches to improving diabetes models. Diabetes models are essentially a framework designed to support a collection of risk equations and parameters; consequently, justifying the choice of equations and parameters utilised is important. A recent review identified twelve risk equations for the prediction of cardiovascular disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) [6]. One such set of equations are derived from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), the UKPDS equations [79]. These equations have been used by many modeling groups for the prediction of microvascular and macrovascular risk in subjects with T2DM [10]. The recent publication of an update to the UKPDS risk equations (UKPDS 82) [11], has generated considerable interest amongst both developers and users of diabetes models. Compared to previous versions of the UKPDS equations, including the most commonly used UKPDS 68, the UKPDS 82 risk equations allow for the modeling of an expanded set of cardiovascular and microvascular endpoints; including secondary myocardial infarction and stroke events; the use of additional modifiable risk factors and mortality risk now calculated with greater granularity.

For end-users of these diabetes models that now include the UKPDS 82 update an important question is how well new equations perform. Consequently, the principal objective of this study was to validate the UKPDS 82 risk equations, embedded within an established T2DM model, to contemporary T2DM outcomes studies. A secondary objective was to illustrate the influence that the expanded risk factor set has on predicted endpoints.

Methods

The Cardiff Diabetes Model

The Cardiff Diabetes Model [12] is designed to estimate the long-term economic and health impact of managing patients with T2DM. The model is a fixed time increment (six-monthly) stochastic simulation with a 40-year time horizon; the core model is coded in C++ and linked to a Microsoft Excel front end. Development of the Cardiff Model began in 2003 and was initially based on the non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) model, published by Eastman [13, 14]. This model was updated to include UKPDS 56, 60 and 68 equations in 2004 and UKPDS 82 in 2014.

The model has been used to explore general health economic issues in diabetes modeling including the cost effectiveness of treatment strategies [15]; the inter-relationship haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), hypoglycaemia and weight change on predicted quality adjusted life years [16]; the use of variance reduction techniques to improve model run-time [17]; and the influence of therapy escalation thresholds on cost-effectiveness [18]. The Cardiff model has participated in the last five Mount Hood Challenge meetings: Mount Hood 3 (2003, Oxford, UK); Mount Hood 4 (2004, Basel, Switzerland) [4]; Mount Hood 5 (2010, Malmo, Sweden) [5], Mount Hood 6 (2012, Baltimore, USA), Mount Hood 7 (2014, Stanford, USA).

In general, the model utilizes the UKPDS Outcomes Model equations (UKPDS 68 and 82) to predict macrovascular and microvascular complications in subjects with T2DM. The model is designed to evaluate a treatment and control pathway, each of which are comprised of up to three lines of therapy. Therapy escalation is either time dependent or controlled via user-defined HbA1c thresholds. The model is capable of running with mean values, with probabilistic inputs or with user-supplied patient level data; standard health economic output includes cost per life years gained and cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Standard model output includes time-dependent event rates, total cost and utility decrements associated with all predicted events.

Validation studies

The validation studies included for this analysis are categorized into internal and external. Internal validation is designed to assess whether the output of the model is internally consistent with the studies and data sources used to construct the disease progression algorithm used by the model. The predominant source of data used by the Cardiff Model is the UKPDS and therefore validation to UKPDS 33 [19], 68 and 80 are considered internal validation studies. External validation compares output from the model with data not specifically used to construct the disease progression algorithms. The external validation studies selected represent a broad range including blood glucose lowering, blood pressure lowering, lipid lowering and multifactorial risk factor management. The specific external validation studies included in this analysis were: the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (ASPEN) [20]; the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) [21]; the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) [22]; the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) [23]; the Anglo–Danish–Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION-Europe) [24]; the Anglo–Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT) [25]; the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) [26]; the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in patients with diabetes mellitus–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (SAVOR-TIMI) 53 study [27] and the look Action for Health in Diabetes (AHEAD) study [28].

Model set-up

For each validation exercise the model’s demographics, baseline risk factor and prior event history cohort profile was initialized to each validation study’s cohort profile. Clinical events, consistently defined between the publication and those predicted by the Cardiff Model were compared over the relevant time horizon. Where appropriate, each simulated cohort had treatment effect profile applied to consistent to that reported in each respective study. These treatment profiles were fully applied in the first cycle of the model. In all subsequent cycles, risk factor trajectories were updated according to the natural history progression specified by the UKPDS 68 panel equations for HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), total cholesterol:high density lipoprotein ratio (TC:HDL). The natural history of weight gain was set to +0.1 kg per year [19] and eGFR was assumed to decline by 0.7 ml/min/year/1.73 m2 [29]; white blood cell count, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, albuminuria and heart rate were held constant using either baseline or post-treatment values (where reported).

Risk factor uncertainty

Where baseline risk factors required by the model were not reported in the validation studies we used the Cardiff Model’s default settings, drawn from UKPDS 82 [30]. In order to better understand how the new risk factors required by UKPDS 82 risk equations impact predicted event rates we sampled baseline values from a normal distribution (±2 × standard error, as reported in UKPDS 82) which for white blood cell count was 6.9 ± 1.8 × 106/ml; LDL cholesterol, 3.0 ± 0.6 mmol/l; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), 77.7 ± 15 ml min1− (1.73 m)−2; heart rate, 72 ± 12 bpm; HbA1c, 145 ± 13 g/l. For the presence of micro or macroalbuminura (albumin ≥50 mg/l) we sampled the binomial proportion, p, using the respective sample size from each study and uniformly sampling the proportion with albumin ≥50 mg/l between 9 and 35%.

Goodness of fit

There exist a number of candidate statistical tests for comparing model output with observed outcomes; however, there is no consensus upon the best approach [31]. Formal hypothesis testing is complicated by the fact that the disease model we are seeking to evaluate is only an approximation to the actual disease; consequently testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the validation study observation and model predictions makes little sense. However, while recognizing that the model is an approximation of the actual disease, we utilised linear regression analysis on annualized event rates (observed versus predicted) to formally assess model fit. Furthermore, to understand where model fit was poor, we also assessed goodness of fit between simulated and observed endpoints for trials, endpoints and treatment arm using the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). These were calculated by comparing X (the predicted endpoints from the Cardiff Model) with Y (the observed endpoints reported in each trial): X 1, X 2,…, X n and Y 1, Y 2,…, Y n , where n is the sample size (the number of validation endpoints). We define the residuals Z as the paired difference between the two sets of results (model and trial): Z = Y − X, i = 1, 2,…, n. Calculation of the MAPE was computed using:
$$MAPE = \frac{1}{n}\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{n} \left| {\left( {\frac{{Y_{i} - X_{i} }}{{Y_{i} }}} \right) \times 100} \right|$$

Finally, and consistent with other validation studies published in the health economic literature, we present scatterplots of observed versus predicted endpoints along with the coefficient of determination (R 2 ).

Results

A total of 100 validation endpoints were simulated across treatment arms of twelve pivotal T2DM outcomes studies. Results from assessing overall goodness of fit via linear regression modeling to the annualized event rate is presented in Table 1. On average both sets of equations tended to slightly under predict the observed event rate as indicated by the intercept terms reported in Table 1; 3.6 (p < 0.001) for UKPDS 68 and 2.4 (p = 0.056) for UKPDS 82. The borderline non-significant intercept term and slope coefficient for UKPDS 82 indicated a slight improvement in fit compared to UKPDS 68. Across all stratifications, the R 2 statistic showed high degrees of linear correlation between observed and predicted and points. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between study observed versus predicted endpoints stratified by validations study, endpoint and UKPDS equations. Overall the validation coefficient of determination was similar between both sets of equations: UKPDS 68, R2 = 0.851; UKPDS 82, R2 = 0.870.
Table 1

Observed versus predicted events for UKPDS 68 and 82 risk equations across all studies and outcomes

 

Estimate

SE

t statistic

Pr(>|t|)

UKPDS 68

 Intercept

3.603

0.959

3.757

<0.001

 Expected

0.915

0.022

41.866

<0.001

UKPDS 82

 Intercept

2.422

1.251

1.936

0.056

 Expected

0.999

0.031

32.166

<0.001

Estimate regression coefficient, SE standard error.

Fig. 1

Observed versus predicted endpoints stratified by validations study, endpoint and UKPDS equations. Overall validation coefficient of determination for UKPDS 68, R2 = 0.851; UKPDS 82, R2 = 0.870. ACM all-cause mortality, CHF congestive heart failure, CHD coronary heart disease, CV cardiovascular, MI myocardial infarction, ESRD end stage renal disease, MVD microvascular disease, PE primary endpoint.

Table 2 reports MAPE and R2 statistics observed and predicted events overall, and by study and endpoint for both UKPDS 68 and 82 risk equations. Overall MAPE was 40.00% (UKPDS 82) and 48.99% (UKPDS 68). Results stratified by internal and external validation studies produced MAPE of 43.77 and 37.82%, respectively, when using UKPDS 82, and MAPE of 40.49 and 53.92%, respectively when using UKPDS 68. Areas of lack of fit, as measured by MAPE were inconsistent between sets of equations with ACCORD demonstrating a noteworthy lack of fit with UKPPDS 68 (MAPE = 170.88%) and the ADDITION study for UKPDS 82 (MAPE = 89.90%).
Table 2

Summary measure of goodness of fit for the predicted endpoints obtained from the Cardiff Diabetes Model

 

UKPDS 68

UKPDS 82

MAPE (%)

R2

MAPE (%)

R2

Study

 ACCORD

170.88

0.69

50.06

0.73

 ADDITION

69.83

0.68

89.90

0.67

 ADVANCE

23.13

0.99

38.91

0.99

 ASCOT

17.36

0.94

20.42

0.96

 ASPEN

19.06

0.86

24.66

0.81

 CARDS

39.84

0.39

32.12

0.69

 Look-AHEAD

27.16

0.88

29.94

075

 SAVOR

8.65

0.96

22.68

0.79

 UKPDS 33

43.87

0.83

48.63

0.95

 UKPDS 80

28.67

0.89

26.75

0.98

 VADT

39.62

0.50

31.05

0.47

Endpoint

 MI

41.80

0.93

43.68

0.85

 Stroke

28.05

0.95

29.35

0.85

 CHF

38.09

0.77

50.05

0.68

 ACM

27.36

0.78

30.35

0.85

 Amputation

48.31

0.87

48.49

0.56

 Blindness

23.40

0.92

20.31

0.96

 ESRD

278.20

0.78

88.11

0.66

 MVD

52.58

NA

35.59

NA

ACM all-cause mortality, CHF congestive heart failure, CHD coronary heart disease, CV cardiovascular, MI myocardial infarction, ESRD end stage renal disease, MVD microvascular disease.

Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between observed versus predicted events using the UKPDS 82 risk equations together with estimates of the prediction range associated with sampling baseline albuminuria, eGFR, heart rate, LDL cholesterol and white blood cell count. Upper and lower ranges are shown for each risk factor exerting most influence on prediction validation endpoint. Of note is that plausible variation in these parameters has the potential to impact the predicted event rate considerably. In 90% of validation endpoints, sampled values within 2 standard errors of the mean (as reported by UKPDS) would have resulted in predicted endpoints lying on the 45º identity line.
Fig. 2

Observed versus predicted events using the UKPDS 82 risk equations. Observed (coloured solid shapes) versus predicted (solid black shapes) together with estimates of the prediction range associated with sampling baseline albuminuria, eGFR, heart rate, LDL cholesterol and white blood cell count. Upper and lower ranges are shown for each risk factor exerting most influence on prediction validation endpoint.

Discussion

Despite a wide range of potential risk equations available to diabetes modelers those published from UKPDS have been widely adopted by a number of modeling groups [10]. Consequently, demonstrating the predictive validity of these new equations is an important consideration for those seeking reassurance that they represent an improvement over the existing UKPDS 68 risk equations; not least because their inclusion within an existing model is not a trivial undertaking. The results from this study would suggest that the UKPDS 82 risk equations are associated with an improved fit to external validation studies compared to UKPDS 68 (MAPE of 40.0 and 49.0% for UKPDS 82 and 68, respectively) and, as expected, a modest improvement to the UKPDS study endpoints. In addition to offering an improved fit to external validation data, the UKPDS 82 equations are also capable of predicting an expanded set of diabetes related endpoints, in particular, secondary myocardial infarction, stroke and amputation events and ulcers. However, these equations require the specification of additional risk factors not always, or routinely, available; and, as illustrated in this analysis, these risk factors exert considerable influence on event rate predictions. This is of less relevance when considering the use of these equations to support cost-effectiveness analyses because it is the incremental difference in event rates (typically driven by risk factors reported in randomized clinical trials) that is important. However, even when the focus is centered on incremental results the prediction of plausible absolute event rates is still a relevant objective. Consequently, users of models employing the UKPDS 82 risk equations will need to ensure missing risk factor information is imputed with care.

In terms of validation results assessed via MAPE and the coefficient of determination (R 2) the results presented in this analysis are consistent with those reported for the recent CORE diabetes model validation [32] which, for UKPDS 82, were MAPE = 39% and R 2 = 0.765 compared to MAPE = 40.0% and R 2 = 0.870 in this study. A recently published validation of the IHE Cohort Model reported an R 2 of 0.968 for the UKPDS 82 risk equations and also reported a tendency for the equations to systematically under predict event rates [33]. Our analysis did not identify any systematic bias associated with the UKPDS 82 equations; however, any differences may reflect findings due to the choice of validation studies used and baseline values specified for albuminuria, eGFR, heart rate, LDL cholesterol and white blood cell count. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that in conducting these validation exercises no attempt was made to calibrate the output of the model to each individual trial. The model was initialized with baseline characteristics as reported in each trial and run over the appropriate time horizon. Model results were only compared with those reported after all analyses had been complete. Consequently, the validation results presented in this study are the same as those we would have presented if were blinded to the respective study publications.

ISPOR’s model validation guidelines emphasize the value of quantitatively assessing goodness of fit [34]; however, the specific choice of quantitative measure to use is not obvious. We have reported the coefficient of determination (R 2) measure to facilitate a comparison due to its widespread use in the health economic model validation literature. However, we found the MAPE a more useful measure to highlight specific areas of lack-of-fit. This raises the important issue of how one should interpret any quantitative measure of goodness of fit. For example, there is no one method of ascertaining if a model’s predictions are appropriately close to the validation study endpoints. While we performed a statistical measure of goodness of fit it should be noted that this test is highly dependent on the number of validation studies performed: as the sample size increases so will the likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis.

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated that the UKPDS 82 equations exhibit similar levels of external validity to the UKPDS 68 equations with the additional benefit of enabling more diabetes related endpoints to be modeled. However, an area of remaining uncertainty for model developers relates to the influence of the expanded risk factor set (white blood cell count, LDL cholesterol, albuminuria, heart rate and eGFR) upon endpoint prediction. The specification of appropriate baseline values and time-dependent trajectories (where relevant) will be an important consideration and an area in which future research should be focused.

Abbreviations

eGFR: 

estimated glomerular filtration rate

HbA1c: 

haemoglobin A 1C

LDL: 

low density lipoprotein

MAPE: 

mean absolute percentage error

NIDDM: 

non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus

QALY: 

quality adjusted life years

T2DM: 

type 2 diabetes mellitus

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

PM conceived of the study, and participated in the analysis and drafting of the manuscript. HB participated in the analysis and drafted the manuscript. TW participated in the analysis and drafting of the manuscript. KB participated in the study design, contributed to the discussion and reviewed/edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Daniel Sugrue (HEOR Ltd.) who provided writing support services.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Competing interests Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a grant from AstraZeneca plc. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following author is employed by the sponsor: K Bergenheim. P McEwan has also received consulting support and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Takeda.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Health Economics and Outcomes Research Ltd
(2)
Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University
(3)
Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, AstraZeneca

References

  1. International Diabetes Federation (2013) IDF Diabetes Atlas te. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 6th edn. International Diabetes Federation, BrusseslGoogle Scholar
  2. Hex N, Bartlett C, Wright D, Taylor M, Varley D (2012) Estimating the current and future costs of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabet Med J Br Diabet Assoc 29(7):855–862. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03698.x View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JB, Palmer AJ, Bisgaard P, Chan W, Pedula K, Russell A (2000) The Mt. Hood challenge: cross-testing two diabetes simulation models. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 50(Suppl 3):S57–S64PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Mount Hood 4 Modeling G (2007) Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabet Care 30(6):1638–1646. doi:https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-9919 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Palmer AJ, Mount Hood 5 Modeling G, Clarke P, Gray A, Leal J, Lloyd A et al (2013) Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fifth Mount Hood challenge meeting. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 16(4):670–685. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.01.002 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. van Dieren S, Beulens JW, Kengne AP, Peelen LM, Rutten GE, Woodward M et al (2012) Prediction models for the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Heart 98(5):360–369. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300734 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Farmer AJ, Fenn P, Stevens RJ et al (2004) A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia 47(10):1747–1759. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-004-1527-z PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Kothari V, Stevens RJ, Adler AI, Stratton IM, Manley SE, Neil HA et al (2002) UKPDS 60: risk of stroke in type 2 diabetes estimated by the UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine. Stroke J Cereb Circ 33(7):1776–1781View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Stevens RJ, Kothari V, Adler AI, Stratton IM, United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study G (2001) The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in type II diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci 101(6):671–679PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Asche CV, Hippler SE, Eurich DT (2014) Review of models used in economic analyses of new oral treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. PharmacoEconomics 32(1):15–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0117-7 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes AJ, Leal J, Gray AM, Holman RR, Clarke PM (2013) UKPDS outcomes model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia 56(9):1925–1933. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-013-2940-y PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. McEwan P, Peters JR, Bergenheim K, Currie CJ (2006) Evaluation of the costs and outcomes from changes in risk factors in type 2 diabetes using the Cardiff stochastic simulation cost-utility model (DiabForecaster). Curr Med Res Opin 22(1):121–129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1185/030079906X80350 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Copley-Merriman C, Maier W et al (1997) Model of complications of NIDDM. II. Analysis of the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of treating NIDDM with the goal of normoglycemia. Diabetes Care 20(5):735–744PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Zbrozek AS, Dong F et al (1997) Model of complications of NIDDM. I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care 20(5):725–734PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. McEwan P, Evans M, Bergenheim K (2010) A population model evaluating the costs and benefits associated with different oral treatment strategies in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 12(7):623–630. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01198.x PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. McEwan P, Evans M, Kan H, Bergenheim K (2010) Understanding the inter-relationship between improved glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and weight change within a long-term economic model. Diabetes Obes Metab 12(5):431–436. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2009.01184.x PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. McEwan P, Bergenheim K, Yuan Y, Tetlow AP, Gordon JP (2010) Assessing the relationship between computational speed and precision: a case study comparing an interpreted versus compiled programming language using a stochastic simulation model in diabetes care. PharmacoEconomics 28(8):665–674. doi:https://doi.org/10.2165/11535350-000000000-00000 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. McEwan P, Gordon J, Evans M, Ward T, Bennett H, Bergenheim K (2015) Estimating cost-effectiveness in type 2 diabetes: the impact of treatment guidelines and therapy duration. Med Decis Making. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14565821 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. (1998) Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 352(9131):837–853Google Scholar
  20. Knopp RH, d’Emden M, Smilde JG, Pocock SJ (2006) Efficacy and safety of atorvastatin in the prevention of cardiovascular end points in subjects with type 2 diabetes: the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (ASPEN). Diabetes Care 29(7):1478–1485. doi:https://doi.org/10.2337/dc05-2415 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, Reda D, Emanuele N, Reaven PD et al (2009) Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 360(2):129–139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0808431 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Group AC, Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L et al (2008) Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 358(24):2560–2572. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0802987 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study G, Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, Goff DC Jr, Bigger JT et al (2008) Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 358(24):2545–2559. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0802743 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffin SJ, Borch-Johnsen K, Davies MJ, Khunti K, Rutten GE, Sandbaek A et al (2011) Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening (ADDITION-Europe): a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 378(9786):156–167. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60698-3 PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M et al (2005) Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 366(9489):895–906. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67185-1 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, Hitman GA, Neil HA, Livingstone SJ et al (2004) Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 364(9435):685–696. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16895-5 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, Steg PG, Davidson J, Hirshberg B et al (2013) Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 369(14):1317–1326. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1307684 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Look ARG, Wing RR, Bolin P, Brancati FL, Bray GA, Clark JM et al (2013) Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 369(2):145–154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zoppini G, Targher G, Chonchol M, Ortalda V, Negri C, Stoico V et al (2012) Predictors of estimated GFR decline in patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol CJASN 7(3):401–408. doi:https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.07650711 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayes AJ, Leal J, Gray AM, Holman RR, Clarke PM (2013) UKPDS Outcomes Model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia 56(9):1925–1933PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Law AM (1991) Simulation modeling and analysis. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. McEwan P, Foos V, Palmer JL, Lamotte M, Lloyd A, Grant D (2014) Validation of the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 17(6):714–724. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.07.007 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Lundqvist A, Steen Carlsson K, Johansen P, Andersson E, Willis M (2014) Validation of the IHE Cohort Model of type 2 diabetes and the impact of choice of macrovascular risk equations. PloS One 9(10):e110235PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB et al (2012) Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 15(6):843–850. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.012 View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© McEwan et al. 2015

Advertisement