Postdelivery Intervention to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes and the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Criteria for Gestational Diabetes

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to model the costs and benefits of 2 screening criteria for people with gestational diabetes. Because people with a history of gestational diabetes are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, we modeled the effects of a postdelivery intervention based on the Diabetes Prevention Program, which is offered to all people with a history of gestational diabetes defined by either set of criteria. INTERVENTION APPROACH: We used a probabilistic decision tree model to compare the cost-effectiveness of the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group’s (IADPSG’s) screening criteria and the Carpenter–Coustan screening criteria for gestational diabetes through delivery and a follow-up period during which people might develop type 2 diabetes after pregnancy. EVALUATION METHODS: The model included perinatal outcomes for the infant and mother and a 10-year postdelivery period to model maternal progression to type 2 diabetes. The model assumed the health care system perspective. People with gestational diabetes received treatment for gestational diabetes during pregnancy, and we assumed that 10% would participate in a Diabetes Prevention Program–based postdelivery intervention to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of each screening strategy in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in 2022 dollars. RESULTS: At 10% participation in a Diabetes Prevention Program–based postdelivery intervention, the Carpenter–Coustan criteria were cost-effective, compared with no screening ($66,085 per QALY). The IADPSG screening criteria were slightly less cost-effective, compared with no screening ($97,878 per QALY) or Carpenter–Coustan screening criteria ($122,279 per QALY). With participation rates of 23% or higher, the IADPSG screening criteria were highly cost-effective ($48,588 per QALY), compared with Carpenter–Coustan screening criteria. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Diagnosing a larger proportion of pregnant people using the IADPSG screening criteria, compared with using Carpenter–Coustan screening criteria, is not cost-effective at low levels of participation. However, with moderate levels of participation (23%) in a Diabetes Prevention Program–based postdelivery intervention, the expanded IADPSG screening criteria are cost-effective and reach up to 4 times as many people as Carpenter–Coustan screening.