Skip to main content
Top

22-06-2013 | Epidemiology | Article

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

Journal: Diabetologia

Authors: A. J. Hayes, J. Leal, A. M. Gray, R. R. Holman, P. M. Clarke

Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis

The aim of this project was to build a new version of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS-OM1), a patient-level simulation tool for predicting lifetime health outcomes of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

Data from 5,102 UKPDS patients from the 20 year trial and the 4,031 survivors entering the 10 year post-trial monitoring period were used to derive parametric proportional hazards models predicting absolute risk of diabetes complications and death. We re-estimated the seven original event equations and estimated new equations for diabetic ulcer and some second events. The additional data permitted inclusion of new risk factor predictors such as estimated GFR. We also developed four new equations for all-cause mortality. Internal validation of model predictions of cumulative incidence of all events and death was carried out and a contemporary patient-level dataset was used to compare 10 year predictions from the original and the new models.

Results

Model equations were based on a median 17.6 years of follow-up and up to 89,760 patient-years of data, providing double the number of events, greater precision and a larger number of significant covariates. The new model, UKPDS-OM2, is internally valid over 25 years and predicts event rates for complications, which are lower than those from the existing model.

Conclusions/interpretation

The new UKPDS-OM2 has significant advantages over the existing model, as it captures more outcomes, is based on longer follow-up data, and more comprehensively captures the progression of diabetes. Its use will permit detailed and reliable lifetime simulations of key health outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Literature
1.
Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A 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 47:1747–1759PubMedCrossRef
2.
The Mount Hood 4 Modeling Group (2007) Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the fourth Mount Hood Challenge meeting. Diabetes Care 30:1638–1646CrossRef
3.
Mt Hood Challenge Group (2013) Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the fifth Mount Hood Challenge meeting. Value Health. doi:10.​1016/​j.​val.​2013.​01.​002
4.
Clarke PM, Gray A, Briggs A, Stevens R, Matthews D, Holman R (2005) On behalf of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 72). Cost utility analyses of intensive blood-glucose and tight blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 48:868–877PubMedCrossRef
5.
Simon J, Gray AM, Clarke P, Wade A, Neil A, Farmer A (2006) Cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with non-insulin treated type 2 diabetes: economic evaluation of data from the randomised controlled DiGEM trial. Br Med J 336:1177–1180CrossRef
6.
Leal J, Gray AM, Clarke PM (2009) Development of life expectancy tables for people with type 2 diabetes. Eur Hear J 30:834–839CrossRef
7.
Leal J, Hayes AJ, Gray AM, Holman RR, Clarke PM (2012) Temporal validation of the UKPDS outcomes model using 10-year posttrial monitoring data. Diabetes Care. doi:10.​2337/​dc12-1120 PubMed
8.
Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force (2012) Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Value Health 15:843–850PubMedCrossRef
9.
Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA (2008) 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 80). N Engl J Med 359:1577–1589PubMedCrossRef
10.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (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). Lancet 352:837–853CrossRef
11.
Stehouwer CD, Smulders YM (2006) Microalbuminuria and risk for cardiovascular disease: analysis of potential mechanisms. J Am Soc Nephrol 17:2106–2111PubMedCrossRef
12.
Heerspink HJ, Holtkamp FA, de Zeeuw D, Ravid M (2011) Monitoring kidney function and albuminuria in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 34(Suppl 2):S325–S329PubMedCrossRef
13.
Hillis GS, Woodward M, Rodgers A et al (2012) Resting heart rate and the risk of death and cardiovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 55:1283–1290PubMedCrossRef
14.
Tong PC, Lee KF, So WY et al (2004) White blood cell count is associated with macro- and microvascular complications in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:216–222PubMedCrossRef
15.
Go AS, Yang J, Ackerson LM et al (2006) Hemoglobin level, chronic kidney disease, and the risks of death and hospitalization in adults with chronic heart failure: the Anemia in Chronic Heart Failure: Outcomes and Resource Utilization (ANCHOR) Study. Circulation 13:2713–2723CrossRef
16.
Nelson CL, Sun JL, Tsiatis AA et al (2008) Empirical estimation of life expectancy from large clinical trials: use of left-truncated, right-censored survival analysis methodology. Statist Med 27:5525–5555CrossRef
17.
Schoenfeld D (1982) Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika 69:239–241CrossRef
18.
Currie CJ, Peters JR, Tynan A et al (2010) Survival as a function of HbA(1c) in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 375:481–489PubMedCrossRef
19.
Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD (2012) ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health 15:835–842PubMedCrossRef
20.
American Diabetes Association Consensus Panel (2004) Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes Care 27:2262–2265CrossRef
21.
Clarke PM, Simon J, Cull CA, Holman RR (2006) Assessing the impact of visual acuity on quality of life in individuals with type 2 diabetes using the short form-36. Diabetes Care 29:1506–1511PubMedCrossRef
22.
Kopec JA, Finès P, Manuel DG et al (2010) Validation of population-based disease simulation models: a review of concepts and methods. BMC Publ Health 10:710CrossRef
23.
Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, Seshasai SR, Kaptoge S, Thompson A et al (2011) Diabetes mellitus, fasting glucose, and risk of cause-specific death. N Engl J Med 364:829–841PubMedCrossRef
24.
Chan JCN, Malik V, Jia W et al (2009) Diabetes in Asia: epidemiology, risk factors, and pathophysiology. JAMA 301:2129–2140PubMedCrossRef
25.
Stevens RJ, Kothari V, Adler AI, Stratton IM, United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (2001) The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in type II diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci 101:671–679PubMedCrossRef
26.
Smith-Spangler CM (2012) Transparency and reproducible research in modeling: why we need it and how to get there. Med Decis Making 32:733–743CrossRef

Be confident that your patient care is up to date

Medicine Matters is being incorporated into Springer Medicine, our new medical education platform. 

Alongside the news coverage and expert commentary you have come to expect from Medicine Matters diabetes, Springer Medicine's complimentary membership also provides access to articles from renowned journals and a broad range of Continuing Medical Education programs. Create your free account »