Literature DB >> 22424250

Alternative HbA1c cutoffs to identify high-risk adults for diabetes prevention: a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Xiaohui Zhuo1, Ping Zhang, Elizabeth Selvin, Thomas J Hoerger, Ronald T Ackermann, Rui Li, Kai McKeever Bullard, Edward W Gregg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New recommendations about the use of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) for diagnosing diabetes have stimulated a debate about the optimal HbA1c cutoff to identify prediabetes for preventive intervention.
PURPOSE: To assess the cost effectiveness associated with the alternative HbA1c cutoffs for identifying prediabetes.
METHODS: A Markov simulation model was used to examine the cost effectiveness associated with a progressive 0.1% decrease in the HbA1c cutoff from 6.4% to 5.5%. The target population was the U.S. nondiabetic population aged ≥18 years. The simulation sample was created using the data of nondiabetic American adults from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES 1999-2006). People identified as having prediabetes were assumed to receive a preventive intervention, with effectiveness the same as that in the Diabetes Prevention Program study under a high-cost intervention (HCI) scenario and in the Promoting a Lifestyle of Activity and Nutrition for Working to Alter the Risk of Diabetes study under a low-cost intervention (LCI) scenario. The analysis was conducted for a lifetime horizon from a healthcare system perspective.
RESULTS: Lowering the HbA1c cutoff would increase the health benefits of the preventive interventions at higher costs. For the HCI, lowering the HbA1c cutoff from 6.0% to 5.9% and from 5.9% to 5.8% would result in $27,000 and $34,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Continuing to decrease the cutoff from 5.8% to 5.7%, from 5.7% to 5.6%, and from 5.6% to 5.5% would cost $45,000, $58,000, and $96,000 per QALY gained, respectively. For the LCI, lowering the HbA1c cutoff from 6.0% to 5.9% and from 5.9% to 5.8% would result in $24,000 and $27,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Continuing to lower the cutoff from 5.8% to 5.7%, 5.7% to 5.6%, and 5.6% to 5.5% would cost $34,000, $43,000 and $70,000 per QALY gained, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Lowering the HbA1c cutoff for prediabetes leads to less cost-effective preventive interventions. Assuming a conventional $50,000/QALY cost-effectiveness benchmark, the HbA1c cutoffs of 5.7% and higher were found to be cost effective. Lowering the cutoff from 5.7% to 5.6% also may be cost effective, however, if the costs of preventive interventions were to be lowered. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22424250     DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.01.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  15 in total

1.  A Simple Model for Predicting Two-Year Risk of Diabetes Development in Individuals with Prediabetes.

Authors:  Harry Glauber; William M Vollmer; Gregory A Nichols
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2018

Review 2.  Preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus: a call for personalized intervention.

Authors:  Harry Glauber; Eddy Karnieli
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013

3.  Preventing type 2 diabetes in communities across the U.S.: the National Diabetes Prevention Program.

Authors:  Ann L Albright; Edward W Gregg
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Effect of baseline HbA1c level on the development of diabetes by lifestyle intervention in primary healthcare settings: insights from subanalysis of the Japan Diabetes Prevention Program.

Authors:  Naoki Sakane; Juichi Sato; Kazuyo Tsushita; Satoru Tsujii; Kazuhiko Kotani; Makoto Tominaga; Shoji Kawazu; Yuzo Sato; Takeshi Usui; Isao Kamae; Toshihide Yoshida; Yutaka Kiyohara; Shigeaki Sato; Kokoro Tsuzaki; Kaoru Takahashi; Hideshi Kuzuya
Journal:  BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care       Date:  2014-04-23

5.  Elevated HbA1c levels in individuals not diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in Qatar: a pilot study.

Authors:  Marjonneke J Mook-Kanamori; Mohammed M El-Din Selim; Ahmed H Takiddin; Khoulood A S Al-Mahmoud; Hala Al-Homsi; Cindy McKeon; Wadha A Al Muftah; Sara Abdul Kader; Dennis O Mook-Kanamori; Karsten Suhre
Journal:  Qatar Med J       Date:  2014-12-09

Review 6.  Diabetes prevention in the real world: Insights from the JDPP and J-DOIT1.

Authors:  Naoki Sakane
Journal:  J Gen Fam Med       Date:  2017-10-09

Review 7.  Effect of lifestyle interventions on cardiovascular risk factors among adults without impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xuanping Zhang; Heather M Devlin; Bryce Smith; Giuseppina Imperatore; William Thomas; Felipe Lobelo; Mohammed K Ali; Keri Norris; Stephanie Gruss; Barbara Bardenheier; Pyone Cho; Isabel Garcia de Quevedo; Uma Mudaliar; Christopher D Jones; Jeffrey M Durthaler; Jinan Saaddine; Linda S Geiss; Edward W Gregg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Reach and Use of Diabetes Prevention Services in the United States, 2016-2017.

Authors:  Mohammed K Ali; Kai McKeever Bullard; Giuseppina Imperatore; Stephen R Benoit; Deborah B Rolka; Ann L Albright; Edward W Gregg
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-05-03

9.  Associations of lifestyle factors, disease history and awareness with health-related quality of life in a Thai population.

Authors:  Prin Vathesatogkit; Piyamitr Sritara; Merel Kimman; Bunlue Hengprasith; Tai E-Shyong; Hwee-Lin Wee; Mark Woodward
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Derivation and external validation of a clinical version of the German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS) including measures of HbA1c.

Authors:  Kristin Mühlenbruch; Rebecca Paprott; Hans-Georg Joost; Heiner Boeing; Christin Heidemann; Matthias B Schulze
Journal:  BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care       Date:  2018-07-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.