Cargando…

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

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 const...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ohde, Sachiko, Moriwaki, Kensuke, Takahashi, Osamu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34022872
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12902-021-00771-0
_version_ 1783696302638366720
author Ohde, Sachiko
Moriwaki, Kensuke
Takahashi, Osamu
author_facet Ohde, Sachiko
Moriwaki, Kensuke
Takahashi, Osamu
author_sort Ohde, Sachiko
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12902-021-00771-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8141129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81411292021-05-25 Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification Ohde, Sachiko Moriwaki, Kensuke Takahashi, Osamu BMC Endocr Disord Research Article 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12902-021-00771-0. BioMed Central 2021-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8141129/ /pubmed/34022872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12902-021-00771-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ohde, Sachiko
Moriwaki, Kensuke
Takahashi, Osamu
Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification
title Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification
title_full Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification
title_short Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification
title_sort cost-effectiveness analysis for hba1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34022872
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12902-021-00771-0
work_keys_str_mv AT ohdesachiko costeffectivenessanalysisforhba1ctestintervalstoscreenpatientswithtype2diabetesbasedonriskstratification
AT moriwakikensuke costeffectivenessanalysisforhba1ctestintervalstoscreenpatientswithtype2diabetesbasedonriskstratification
AT takahashiosamu costeffectivenessanalysisforhba1ctestintervalstoscreenpatientswithtype2diabetesbasedonriskstratification