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 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
38 Views
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diabetes screening is an effective tool for diagnosing patients who are unaware of their diabetes and for providing them with optimal treatment. The quality of care and treatment of diabetic patients diagnosed at a screening program during one year in Isfahan, a centrally located Iranian city, was assessed. In a prospective study, 1640 first-degree relatives of diabetic patients (aged 35-55) were screened for diabetes mellitus at Isfahan Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center during 2003-2004. All patients diagnosed with diabetes during screening were selected and their height, weight, blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, lipids and HbA1c were recorded at the time of diagnosis and one year later. The values at the time of screening were subsequently compared with those collected one year later. Eighty-three subjects (5.06%) were diagnosed with diabetes during screening. Of these patients, 78.3% were dyslipidemic and 45% were hypertensive. One year after diagnosis, 77.1% of patients were receiving treatment for hyperglycemia. However, only 49.2% of dyslipidemic and 45% of hypertensive patients were being treated for these conditions. Body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, lipids and HbA1c had improved one year after diagnosis, but no significant improvement was observed in blood pressure. The evaluation of the quality of care for newly diagnosed diabetic patients revealed that more attention should be paid to glycemic control and reducing cardiovascular risk factors, in particular hypertension.
    The Review of Diabetic Studies 02/2008; 5(1):52-8.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We used available studies to answer two clinically relevant questions, i.e. whether those with type 2 diabetes should undergo hepatitis C virus screening and whether hepatitis C virus positive individuals should be screened for diabetes. Four reasons argue against the hypothesis of screening diabetics for hepatitis C virus. First, although it induces insulin resistance, hepatitis C virus is not directly diabetogenic. Second, the clinical phenotype of hepatitis C virus-associated type 2 diabetes might be a clue to target the specific diabetic population to be screened. Third, diabetic patients are expected to be poor responders to antivirals and evidence that this might result in recovery from type 2 diabetes is insufficient. Fourth, no econometric data are available in the specific subset of those with type 2 diabetes. Case finding of type 2 diabetes in those with hepatitis C virus infection, in contrast, might be considered in those patients with type 2 diabetes who have cirrhosis, in whom--due to increased prevalence and severity of hepatic encephalopathy--diabetes is associated with increased mortality. Preliminary evidence suggests that the prognosis of cirrhosis might benefit from improved glycemic control and thus from earlier diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Finally, studies are needed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy of case-finding type 2 diabetes among those who are hepatitis C virus-infected. In conclusion, available data enabled us to answer the two questions. Hepatitis C virus screening should best be restricted to those (lean) diabetic patients with (advanced) liver disease. Glucose tolerance testing should best be performed in those with hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to support the cost-effectiveness of our conclusions.
    Digestive and Liver Disease 09/2007; 39(8):753-61. · 3.16 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

Andrea Icks