Literature DB >> 12941715

Costs of screening for pre-diabetes among US adults: a comparison of different screening strategies.

Ping Zhang1, Michael M Engelgau, Rodolfo Valdez, Stephanie M Benjamin, Betsy Cadwell, K M Venkat Narayan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated various strategies to identify individuals aged 45-74 years with pre-diabetes (either impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a cost analysis to evaluate the effectiveness (proportion of cases identified), total costs, and efficiency (cost per case identified) of five detection strategies: an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test, an HbA(1c) test, a capillary blood glucose (CBG) test, and a risk assessment questionnaire. For the first strategy, all individuals received an OGTT. For the last four strategies, only those with a positive screening test received an OGTT. Data were from the Third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2000 census, Medicare, and published literature. One-time screening costs were estimated from both a single-payer perspective and a societal perspective.
RESULTS: The proportion of pre-diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes identified ranged from 69% to 100% (12.1-17.5 million). The cost per case identified ranged from US dollars 176 to US dollars 236 from a single-payer perspective and from US dollars 247 to US dollars 332 from a societal perspective. Testing all with OGTT was the most effective strategy, but the CBG test and risk assessment questionnaire were the most efficient. If people are substantially less willing to take an OGTT than a FPG test, then the FPG testing strategy was the most effective strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a tradeoff between effectiveness and efficiency in choosing a strategy. The most favorable strategy depends on if the goal of the screening program is to identify more cases or to pursue the lowest cost per case. The expected percentage of the population willing to take an OGTT is also a consideration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12941715     DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.9.2536

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


  18 in total

Review 1.  Heart failure in women.

Authors:  J Julia Shin; Eman Hamad; Sandhya Murthy; Ileana L Piña
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.882

Review 2.  Back to Wilson and Jungner: 10 good reasons to screen for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Ann M Sheehy; Douglas B Coursin; Robert A Gabbay
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 7.616

3.  Measuring the sweet smell of success in diabetes management.

Authors:  Jeff Unger
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2014-12

4.  Acute psychosis and type 2 diabetes mellitus:should screening guidelines be revised?

Authors:  Leah K Bauer; Lawson R Wulsin; Gina Guadagno
Journal:  Prim Care Companion CNS Disord       Date:  2011

5.  An innovative multiphased strategy to recruit underserved adults into a randomized trial of a community-based diabetes risk reduction program.

Authors:  Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Julissa Cabrera; Rachel Freyre; Melanie Grossman; Natalie Alvarez; Deepika Mathur; Maria Guerrero; Adriana T Delgadillo; Alka M Kanaya; Anita L Stewart
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  2011-06

6.  A Method for Manipulating Blood Glucose and Measuring Resulting Changes in Cognitive Accessibility of Target Stimuli.

Authors:  Marjorie L Prokosch; Sarah E Hill
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 1.355

7.  Screening adults for pre-diabetes and diabetes may be cost-saving.

Authors:  Ranee Chatterjee; K M Venkat Narayan; Joseph Lipscomb; Lawrence S Phillips
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 17.152

8.  The prevention of type 2 diabetes: general practitioner and practice nurse opinions.

Authors:  Rhys Williams; Frances Rapport; Glyn Elwyn; Brendan Lloyd; Jaynie Rance; Sally Belcher
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Random plasma glucose in serendipitous screening for glucose intolerance: screening for impaired glucose tolerance study 2.

Authors:  David C Ziemer; Paul Kolm; Jovonne K Foster; William S Weintraub; Viola Vaccarino; Mary K Rhee; Rincy M Varughese; Circe W Tsui; David D Koch; Jennifer G Twombly; K M Venkat Narayan; Lawrence S Phillips
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for identifying pediatric diabetes mellitus and dysglycemia.

Authors:  En-Ling Wu; Nayla G Kazzi; Joyce M Lee
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 16.193

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.