Article

Cost-effectiveness of type 2 diabetes screening: results from recently published studies.

Leibniz Institute at Heinrich Heine University, Institute of Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Das Gesundheitswesen (Impact Factor: 0.94). 09/2005; 67 Suppl 1:S167-71. DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-858232
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Type 2 diabetes screening is recommended by various international diabetes associations. We conducted a literature research to identify and describe systematically recently published cost effectiveness analyses (CEA) for type 2 diabetes screening. Three analyses were included. One of them was conducted in Germany, based on the data of the KORA survey S4 (1999/2001). Two studies came from the US. The German as well as one of the US studies evaluated cost per detected diabetic case as main outcome. In contrast to the US study, the German study considered incomplete participation in the screening programs as baseline case. HbA1 c testing combined with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was more expensive than OGTT or fasting glucose testing, but also most effective in detecting cases, due to high participation in this screening strategy. The second US study investigated the lifetime cost effectiveness of type 2 diabetes screening, based on a Markov model to calculate cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Effectiveness data were derived from two large intervention studies in clinically diagnosed (not identified by screening) diabetic subjects. The authors conclude that type 2 diabetes screening is cost effective, in particular targeted screening in elderly hypertensive subjects. Diabetes screening may be cost effective. However, the effectiveness of early detection and treatment of type 2 diabetes has not yet been shown, and data regarding the course of early detected diabetes are lacking so far. In the future, the most important question is whether type 2 diabetes screening and early treatment is effective with respect to clinical outcomes.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
41 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended.
    Clinical Chemistry 06/2011; 57(6):e1-e47. · 7.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multiple laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. A draft of the guidelines was posted on the Internet, and the document was modified in response to comments. The guidelines were reviewed by the joint Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC and the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequent approval by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. In addition to the long-standing criteria based on measurement of venous plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) concentrations in the blood. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by the patients measuring their own plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.
    Clinical Chemistry 06/2011; 57(6):793-8. · 7.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Positive screening results are often associated not only with target-disease-specific but also with non-target-disease-specific mortality. In general, this association is due to joint risk factors. Cost-effectiveness estimates based on decision-analytic models may be biased if this association is not reflected appropriately. OBJECTIVE: To develop a procedure for quantifying the degree of bias when an increase in non-target-disease-specific mortality is not considered. METHODS: We developed a family of parametric functions that generate hazard ratios (HRs) of non-target-disease-specific mortality between subjects screened positive and negative, with the HR of target-disease-specific mortality serving as the input variable. To demonstrate the efficacy of this procedure, we fitted a function within the context of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk screening, based on HRs related to different risk factors extracted from published studies. Estimates were embedded into a decision-analytic model, and the impact of 'modelling increased non-target-disease-specific mortality' was assessed. RESULTS: In 55-year-old German men, based on a risk screening with 5 % positively screened subjects, and a CAD risk ratio of 6 within the first year after screening, incremental quality-adjusted life-years were 19 % higher and incremental costs were 8 % lower if no adjustment was made. The effect varied depending on age, gender, the explanatory power of the screening test and other factors. CONCLUSION: Some bias can occur when an increase in non-target-disease-specific mortality is not considered when modelling the outcomes of screening tests.
    The European Journal of Health Economics 12/2012; · 2.10 Impact Factor