scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachiko Ohde ◽  
Kensuke Moriwaki ◽  
Osamu Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Test Interval ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Hba1c Test ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Low Bmi

Abstract Background The best HbA1c test interval strategy for detecting new type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cases in healthy individuals should be determined with consideration of HbA1c test characteristics, risk stratification towards T2DM and cost effectiveness. Methods State transition models were constructed to investigate the optimal screening interval for new cases of T2DM among each age- and BMI-stratified health individuals. Age was stratified into 30–44-, 45–59-, and 60–74-year-old age groups, and BMI was also stratified into underweight, normal, overweight and obesity. In each model, different HbA1c test intervals were evaluated with respect to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Annual intervals (Japanese current strategy), every 3 years (recommendations in US and UK) and intervals which are tailored to each risk stratification group were compared. All model parameters, including costs for screening and treatment, rates for complications and mortality and utilities, were taken from published studies. The willingness-to-pay threshold in the cost-effectiveness analysis was set to US $50,000/QALY. Results The HbA1c test interval for detecting T2DM in healthy individuals varies by age and BMI. Three-year intervals were the most cost effective in obesity at all ages—30-44: $15,034/QALY, 45–59: $11,849/QALY, 60–74: $8685/QALY—compared with the other two interval strategies. The three-year interval was also the most cost effective in the 60–74-year-old age groups—underweight: $11,377/QALY, normal: $18,123/QALY, overweight: $12,537/QALY—and in the overweight 45–59-year-old group; $18,918/QALY. In other groups, the screening interval for detecting T2DM was found to be longer than 3 years, as previously reported. Annual screenings were dominated in many groups with low BMI and in younger age groups. Based on the probability distribution of the ICER, results were consistent among any groups. Conclusions The three-year screening interval was optimal among elderly at all ages, the obesity at all ages and the overweight in 45–59-year-old group. For those sin the low-BMI and younger age groups, the optimal HbA1c test interval could be longer than 3 years. Annual screening to detect T2DM was not cost effective and should not be applied in any population.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachiko Ohde ◽  
Kensuke Moriwaki ◽  
Osamu Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Test Interval ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Hba1c Test ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Low Bmi

Abstract Background: To determine the best HbA1c test interval strategy for detecting new type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cases in a healthy population, HbA1c test characteristics, risk stratification towards T2DM and cost effectiveness were considered.Methods: State transition models were built to study the optimal screening interval for new cases of T2DM among each age- and BMI-stratified health population. Age was stratified into 30-44-, 45-59-, and 60-74-year-old age groups, and BMI was also stratified into underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-25 kg/m2), overweight (25-30 kg/m2) and obese (≥30 kg/m2). In each model, different HbA1c test intervals were compared to evaluate costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We compared intervals annually (current Japanese strategy), every three years (US and UK recommendations) and tailored to each risk stratification group, based on our previous work. All model parameters, including screening and treatment costs, complications and mortality rates and utilities, were applied from published studies. The willingness-to-pay threshold in the cost-effectiveness analysis was set to US $50,000/QALY.Results: The HbA1c test interval for detecting T2DM in a healthy population varies by age and BMI. Three-year intervals were the most cost effective in obese groups at all ages—30-44: $15,034/QALY, 45-59: $11,849/QALY, 60-74: $8,685/QALY—compared with the other two interval strategies. The three-year interval was also the most cost effective in the 60-74-year-old age groups—underweight: $11,377/QALY, normal: $18,123/QALY, overweight: $12,537/QALY—and in the overweight 45-59-year-old group; $18,918/QALY. In other groups, the screening interval for detecting T2DM was found to be longer than three years, as previously reported. Annual screenings were dominated in many groups with low BMI and in younger age groups. Based on the probability distribution of the ICER, QALY does not show much difference among any groups.Conclusions: Annual screening to detect T2DM was not cost effective and should not apply to any population. The three-year screening interval was optimal among all elderly populations, the obese groups of all ages and the overweight 45-59-year-old group. For the low BMI and younger age groups, the optimal HbA1c test interval can be longer than three years.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachiko Ohde ◽  
Kensuke Moriwaki ◽  
Osamu Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Test Interval ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Hba1c Test ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Low Bmi

Abstract Background: To determine the best HbA1c test interval strategy for detecting new type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cases in a healthy population, HbA1c test characteristics, risk stratification towards T2DM and cost effectiveness were considered.Methods: State transition models were built to study the optimal screening interval for new cases of T2DM among each age- and BMI-stratified health population. Age was stratified into 30-44-, 45-59-, and 60-74-year-old age groups, and BMI was also stratified into underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-25 kg/m2), overweight (25-30 kg/m2) and obesity (≥30 kg/m2). In each model, different HbA1c test intervals were compared to evaluate costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We compared intervals annually (current Japanese strategy), every three years (US and UK recommendations) and tailored to each risk stratification group, based on our previous work. All model parameters, including screening and treatment costs, complications and mortality rates and utilities, were applied from published studies. The willingness-to-pay threshold in the cost-effectiveness analysis was set to US $50,000/QALY.Results: The HbA1c test interval for detecting T2DM in a healthy population varies by age and BMI. Three-year intervals were the most cost effective in obesity at all ages—30-44: $15,034/QALY, 45-59: $11,849/QALY, 60-74: $8,685/QALY—compared with the other two interval strategies. The three-year interval was also the most cost effective in the 60-74-year-old age groups—underweight: $11,377/QALY, normal: $18,123/QALY, overweight: $12,537/QALY—and in the overweight 45-59-year-old group; $18,918/QALY. In other groups, the screening interval for detecting T2DM was found to be longer than three years, as previously reported. Annual screenings were dominated in many groups with low BMI and in younger age groups. Based on the probability distribution of the ICER, QALY does not show much difference among any groups.Conclusions: Annual screening to detect T2DM was not cost effective and should not apply to any population. The three-year screening interval was optimal among all elderly populations, the obesity at all ages and the overweight 45-59-year-old group. For the low BMI and younger age groups, the optimal HbA1c test interval can be longer than three years.

scholarly journals Development of a cost-effectiveness model for optimisation of the screening interval in diabetic retinopathy screening

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (74) ◽  
pp. 1-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter H Scanlon ◽  
Stephen J Aldington ◽  
Jose Leal ◽  
Ramon Luengo-Fernandez ◽  
Jason Oke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
East Anglia ◽  
Effective Screening ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Screening Intervals ◽  
Qaly Threshold

BackgroundThe English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme was established in 2003. Eligible people are invited annually for digital retinal photography screening. Those found to have potentially sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) are referred to surveillance clinics or to Hospital Eye Services.ObjectivesTo determine whether personalised screening intervals are cost-effective.DesignRisk factors were identified in Gloucestershire, UK using survival modelling. A probabilistic decision hidden (unobserved) Markov model with a misgrading matrix was developed. This informed estimation of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in patients without STDR. Two personalised risk stratification models were employed: two screening episodes (SEs) (low, medium or high risk) or one SE with clinical information (low, medium–low, medium–high or high risk). The risk factor models were validated in other populations.SettingGloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia (all UK).ParticipantsPeople with diabetes in Gloucestershire with risk stratification model validation using data from Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia.Main outcome measuresPersonalised risk-based algorithm for screening interval; cost-effectiveness of different screening intervals.ResultsData were obtained in Gloucestershire from 12,790 people with diabetes with known risk factors to derive the risk estimation models, from 15,877 people to inform the uptake of screening and from 17,043 people to inform the health-care resource-usage costs. Two stratification models were developed: one using only results from previous screening events and one using previous screening and some commonly available GP data. Both models were capable of differentiating groups at low and high risk of development of STDR. The rate of progression to STDR was 5 per 1000 person-years (PYs) in the lowest decile of risk and 75 per 1000 PYs in the highest decile. In the absence of personalised risk stratification, the most cost-effective screening interval was to screen all patients every 3 years, with a 46% probability of this being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Using either risk stratification models, screening patients at low risk every 5 years was the most cost-effective option, with a probability of 99-100% at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. For the medium-risk groups screening every 3 years had a probability of 43 –48% while screening high-risk groups every 2 years was cost-effective with a probability of 55–59%.ConclusionsThe study found that annual screening of all patients for STDR was not cost-effective. Screening this entire cohort every 3 years was most likely to be cost-effective. When personalised intervals are applied, screening those in our low-risk groups every 5 years was found to be cost-effective. Screening high-risk groups every 2 years further improved the cost-effectiveness of the programme. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimated incremental costs and in the incremental QALYs, particularly with regard to implications of an increasing proportion of maculopathy cases receiving intravitreal injection rather than laser treatment. Future work should focus on improving the understanding of risk, validating in further populations and investigating quality issues in imaging and assessment including the potential for automated image grading.Study registrationIntegrated Research Application System project number 118959.Funding detailsThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Within trial cost-effectiveness of a structured lifestyle intervention in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes: Results from the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Zhang ◽  
Karen M. Atkinson ◽  
George Bray ◽  
Haiying Chen ◽  
Jeanne M. Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifestyle Intervention ◽  
Health Utility Index ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Utility ◽  
Health Care Expenditures ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year

<b>OBJECTIVE </b>To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) compared to standard diabetes support and education (DSE) in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, as implemented in the Action for Health in Diabetes study. <p><b>RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS</b> Data were from 4,827 participants during the first 9 years of the study from 2001 to 2012. Information on Health Utility Index-2 and -3, SF-6D, and Feeling Thermometer [FT]), cost of delivering the interventions, and health expenditures were collected during the study. CE was measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Costs were in 2012 US dollars. </p> <p><b>RESULTS </b><a>Over the </a>9 years studied, the mean cumulative intervention costs and mean cumulative health care expenditures were $11,275 and $64,453 per person for ILI and $887 and $68,174 for DSE. Thus, ILI cost $6,666 more per person than DSE. Additional QALYs gained by ILI were not statistically significant measured by the HUIs and were 0.17 and 0.16, respectively, measured by SF-6D and FT. The ICERs ranged from no health benefit with a higher cost based on HUIs, to $96,458/QALY and $43,169/QALY, respectively, based on SF-6D and FT. </p> <p><b>Conclusions </b>Whether<b> </b>ILI was cost-effective over the 9-year period is unclear because different health utility measures led to different conclusions. </p>

scholarly journals How effective and cost-effective is water fluoridation for adults? Protocol for a 10-year retrospective cohort study

BDJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Moore ◽  
Thomas Allen ◽  
Stephen Birch ◽  
Martin Tickle ◽  
Tanya Walsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Dental Treatment ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Tooth Decay ◽  
Service Utilisation ◽  
Water Fluoridation

Abstract Background Tooth decay can cause pain, sleepless nights and loss of productive workdays. Fluoridation of drinking water was identified in the 1940s as a cost-effective method of prevention. In the mid-1970s, fluoride toothpastes became widely available. Since then, in high-income countries the prevalence of tooth decay in children has reduced whilst natural tooth retention in older age groups has increased. Most water fluoridation research was carried out before these dramatic changes in fluoride availability and oral health. Furthermore, there is a paucity of evidence in adults. The aim of this study is to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation in preventing invasive dental treatment in adults and adolescents aged over 12. Methods/design Retrospective cohort study using 10 years of routinely available dental treatment data. Individuals exposed to water fluoridation will be identified by sampled water fluoride concentration linked to place of residence. Outcomes will be based on the number of invasive dental treatments received per participant (fillings, extractions, root canal treatments). A generalised linear model with clustering by local authority area will be used for analysis. The model will include area level propensity scores and individual-level covariates. The economic evaluation will focus on (1) cost-effectiveness as assessed by the water fluoridation mean cost per invasive treatment avoided and (2) a return on investment from the public sector perspective, capturing the change in cost of dental service utilisation resulting from investment in water fluoridation. Discussions There is a well-recognised need for contemporary evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation, particularly for adults. The absence of such evidence for all age groups may lead to an underestimation of the potential benefits of a population-wide, rather than targeted, fluoride delivery programme. This study will utilise a pragmatic design to address the information needs of policy makers in a timely manner.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Bariatric Surgery for Morbidly Obese with Diabetes Patients in Thailand

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ithiphon Viratanapanu ◽  
Chavalit Romyen ◽  
Komol Chaivanijchaya ◽  
Sikarin Sornphiphatphong ◽  
Worawit Kattipatanapong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Diabetes Control ◽  
Effectiveness Evaluation ◽  
Morbidly Obese ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Dm Type 2

Background. Bariatric surgery is a choice for treatment in morbidly obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM type 2) who have inadequate diabetes control with only medical treatment. However, bariatric surgery requires highly sophisticated equipment, and thus the cost of surgery seems to be very high following the procedure compared with the cost of conventional diabetes care. This raises the question of whether bariatric surgery is cost-effective for morbidly obese people with diabetes in Thailand. Objective. To perform a cost-effectiveness evaluation of bariatric surgery compared with ordinary treatment for diabetes control in morbidly obese DM type 2 patients in Thailand. Methods. Cost-effectiveness study was conducted, using a combination of decision tree and Markov model in analysis. Treatment outcomes and healthcare costs were incurred by data from literature review and retrospective cohort in King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital from September 2009 to March 2016 for the conventional and bariatric surgery group, respectively. One-way sensitivity was used for analysis of the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Monetary benefits at a threshold of 150,000 to 200,000 Thai baht (THB) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) based on the Thailand gross domestic products (GDP) value was regarded as cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery. Results. Bariatric surgery significantly improves the clinical outcome including long-term diabetes remission rate, hemoglobin A1C, and body mass index (BMI). The incremental cost per QALY of bariatric surgery compared with the medication control is 26,907.76 THB/QALY which can consider bariatric surgery as a cost-effective option. Conclusions. Use of bariatric surgery in morbidly obese with DM type 2 patients is a cost-effective strategy in Thailand’s context.

scholarly journals A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of an Adjuvanted Subunit Vaccine for the Prevention of Herpes Zoster and Post-herpetic Neuralgia

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher F Carpenter ◽  
Annas Aljassem ◽  
Jerry Stassinopoulos ◽  
Giovanni Pisacreta ◽  
David Hutton
Keyword(s):  
Herpes Zoster ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Subunit Vaccine ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Disease Epidemiology

Abstract Background Herpes zoster (HZ) develops in up to 50% of unvaccinated individuals, accounting for &gt;1 million cases annually in the United States. A live attenuated HZ vaccine (LAV) is Food and Drug Administration approved for those age 50 years or older, though Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations are only for those age 60 years or older. LAV efficacy is ~70% for persons 50–59 years of age, with lower efficacy in older adults. A new 2-dose adjuvanted subunit vaccine (SUV) has &gt;95% efficacy in persons 50–69 years of age and remains ~90% efficacious in persons vaccinated at age 70 years. Methods To estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of SUV, LAV, and no vaccination (NoV) strategies, a Markov model was developed based on published data on vaccine efficacy, durability of protection, quality of life, resource utilization, costs, and disease epidemiology. The perspective was US societal, and the cycle length was 1 year with a lifelong time horizon. SUV efficacy was estimated to wane at the same rate as LAV. Outcomes evaluated included lifetime costs, discounted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results For individuals vaccinated at age 50 years, the ICER for LAV vs NoV was $118 535 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); at age 60 years, the ICER dropped to $42 712/QALY. SUV was more expensive but had better ICERs than LAV. At age 50, the ICER was $91 156/QALY, and it dropped to $19 300/QALY at age 60. Conclusions Vaccination with SUV was more cost-effective than LAV in all age groups studied. Vaccination with SUV at age 50 years appears cost-effective, with an ICER &lt;$100 000/QALY.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EXERCISE PROGRAMS IN TYPE 2 DIABETES

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doug Coyle ◽  
Kathryn Coyle ◽  
Glen P. Kenny ◽  
Normand G. Boulé ◽  
George A. Wells ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Exercise Training ◽  
Exercise Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Exercise Programs ◽  
Combined Exercise ◽  
Use Of Resources ◽  
Life Years

Background: A randomized controlled trial has shown that supervised, facility-based exercise training is effective in improving glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. However, these programs are associated with additional costs. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of such programs.Methods: Analysis used data from the Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise (DARE) clinical trial which compared three different exercise programs (resistance, aerobic or a combination of both) of 6 months duration with a control group (no exercise program). Clinical outcomes at 6 months were entered for individual patients into the UKPDS economic model for type 2 diabetes adapted for the Canadian context. From this, expected life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were estimated for all patients within the trial.Results: The combined exercise program was the most expensive ($40,050) followed by the aerobic program ($39,250), the resistance program ($38,300) and no program ($31,075). QALYs were highest for combined (8.94), followed by aerobic (8.77), resistance (8.73) and no program (8.70). The incremental cost per QALY gained for the combined exercise program was $4,792 compared with aerobic alone, $8,570 compared with resistance alone, and $37,872 compared with no program. The combined exercise program remained cost-effective for all scenarios considered within sensitivity analysis.Conclusions: A program providing training in both resistance and aerobic exercise was the most cost-effective of the alternatives compared. Based on previous funding decisions, exercise training for individuals with diabetes can be considered an efficient use of resources.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of testing strategies for type 2 diabetes: a modelling study

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (33) ◽  
pp. 1-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Gillett ◽  
Alan Brennan ◽  
Penny Watson ◽  
Kamlesh Khunti ◽  
Melanie Davies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Uptake Rates ◽  
Multiethnic Population ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundAn estimated 850,000 people have diabetes without knowing it and as many as 7 million more are at high risk of developing it. Within the NHS Health Checks programme, blood glucose testing can be undertaken using a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) test but the relative cost-effectiveness of these is unknown.ObjectivesTo estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes using a HbA1ctest versus a FPG test. In addition, to compare the use of a random capillary glucose (RCG) test versus a non-invasive risk score to prioritise individuals who should undertake a HbA1cor FPG test.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis using the Sheffield Type 2 Diabetes Model to model lifetime incidence of complications, costs and health benefits of screening.SettingEngland; population in the 40–74-years age range eligible for a NHS health check.Data sourcesThe Leicester Ethnic Atherosclerosis and Diabetes Risk (LEADER) data set was used to analyse prevalence and screening outcomes for a multiethnic population. Alternative prevalence rates were obtained from the literature or through personal communication.Methods(1) Modelling of screening pathways to determine the cost per case detected followed by long-term modelling of glucose progression and complications associated with hyperglycaemia; and (2) calculation of the costs and health-related quality of life arising from complications and calculation of overall cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), net monetary benefit and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.ResultsBased on the LEADER data set from a multiethnic population, the results indicate that screening using a HbA1ctest is more cost-effective than using a FPG. For National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-recommended screening strategies, HbA1cleads to a cost saving of £12 and a QALY gain of 0.0220 per person when a risk score is used as a prescreen. With no prescreen, the cost saving is £30 with a QALY gain of 0.0224. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that the likelihood of HbA1cbeing more cost-effective than FPG is 98% and 95% with and without a risk score, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicate that the results based on prevalence in the LEADER data set are insensitive to a variety of alternative assumptions. However, where a region of the country has a very different joint HbA1cand FPG distribution from the LEADER data set such that a FPG test yields a much higher prevalence of high-risk cases relative to HbA1c, FPG may be more cost-effective. The degree to which the FPG-based prevalence would have to be higher depends very much on the uncertain relative uptake rates of the two tests. Using a risk score such as the Leicester Practice Database Score (LPDS) appears to be more cost-effective than using a RCG test to identify individuals with the highest risk of diabetes who should undergo blood testing.LimitationsWe did not include rescreening because there was an absence of required relevant evidence.ConclusionsBased on the multiethnic LEADER population, among individuals currently attending NHS Health Checks, it is more cost-effective to screen for diabetes using a HbA1ctest than using a FPG test. However, in some localities, the prevalence of diabetes and high risk of diabetes may be higher for FPG relative to HbA1cthan in the LEADER cohort. In such cases, whether or not it still holds that HbA1cis likely to be more cost-effective than FPG depends on the relative uptake rates for HbA1cand FPG. Use of the LPDS appears to be more cost-effective than a RCG test for prescreening.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document