Intervention-only programmes were in general more cost effective than programmes that also included a screening component .
The longer the period evaluated , the more cost-effective interventions appeared .
There was insufficient evidence to answer the question of ( 1 ) whether lifestyle programmes are more cost effective than metformin or ( 2 ) whether low-intensity lifestyle interventions are more cost effective than the more intensive lifestyle programmes that were tested in trials .
OBJECTIVE Explore the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions and metformin in reducing subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes  , both alone and in combination with a screening programme to identify high-risk individuals .
Cost-Effectiveness of the Interventions in the Primary Prevention of Diabetes Among Asian Indians
OBJECTIVE —In the Indian Diabetes Prevention Programme ( IDPP ) , a 3-year r and omized , controlled trial , lifestyle modification ( LSM ) and metformin helped to prevent type 2 diabetes in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance ( IGT ) . The direct medical costs and cost-effectiveness of the interventions relative to the control group are reported here . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS —Relative effectiveness and costs of interventions ( LSM , metformin , and LSM and metformin ) in the IDPP were estimated from the health care system perspective . Costs of intervention considered were only the direct medical costs . Direct nonmedical , indirect , and research costs were excluded . The cost-effectiveness of interventions was measured as the amount spent to prevent one case of diabetes within the 3-year trial period . RESULTS —The direct medical cost to identify one subject with IGT was Indian rupees ( INR ) 5,278 ( $ 117 ) . Direct medical costs of interventions over the 3-year trial period were INR 2,739 ( $ 61 ) per subject in the control group , INR 10,136 ( $ 225 ) with LSM , INR 9,881 ( $ 220 ) with metformin , and INR 12,144 ( $ 270 ) with LSM and metformin . The number of individuals needed to treat to prevent a case of diabetes was 6.4 with LSM , 6.9 with metformin , and 6.5 with LSM and metformin . Cost-effectiveness to prevent one case of diabetes with LSM was INR 47,341 ( $ 1,052 ) , with metformin INR 49,280 ( $ 1,095 ) , and with LSM and metformin INR 61,133 ( $ 1,359 ) . CONCLUSIONS —Both LSM and metformin were cost-effective interventions for preventing diabetes among high risk-individuals in India and perhaps may be useful in other developing countries as well . The long-term cost-effectiveness of the interventions needs to be assessed
Intervention-only programmes were in general more cost effective than programmes that also included a screening component .
The longer the period evaluated , the more cost-effective interventions appeared .
There was insufficient evidence to answer the question of ( 1 ) whether lifestyle programmes are more cost effective than metformin or ( 2 ) whether low-intensity lifestyle interventions are more cost effective than the more intensive lifestyle programmes that were tested in trials .
OBJECTIVE Explore the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions and metformin in reducing subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes  , both alone and in combination with a screening programme to identify high-risk individuals .