R S Dadwani1, M R Skandari2, M S GoodSmith1, L S Phillips3,4, M K Rhee3,4, N Laiteerapong5. 1. Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, GA, USA. 5. Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the U.S. population-level impact of two alternatives for initial type 2 diabetes screening [opportunistic random plasma glucose (RPG) > 6.7 mmol/l and a 1-h 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) > 8.9 mmol/l] compared with American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended tests. METHODS: Using a sample (n = 1471) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014 that represented 145 million U.S. adults at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes, we simulated a two-test screening process. We compared ADA-recommended screening tests [fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), HbA1c ] vs. initial screening with opportunistic RPG or GCT (followed by FPG, OGTT or HbA1c ). After simulation, participants were entered into an individual-level Monte Carlo-based Markov lifetime outcomes model. Primary outcomes were representative number of U.S. adults correctly identified with type 2 diabetes, societal lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: In NHANES 2013-2014, 100 individuals had undiagnosed diabetes [weighted estimate: 8.4 million, standard error (se): 1.1 million]. Among ADA-recommended screening tests, FPG followed by OGTT (FPG-OGTT) was most sensitive, identifying 35 individuals with undiagnosed diabetes (weighted estimate: 3.2 million, se: 0.9 million). Four alternative screening strategies performed superior to FPG-OGTT, with RPG followed by OGTT being the most sensitive overall, identifying 72 individuals with undiagnosed diabetes (weighted estimate: 6.1 million, se: 1.0 million). There was no increase in average lifetime costs and comparable QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Initial screening using opportunistic RPG or a GCT may identify more U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes without increasing societal costs.
AIM: To evaluate the U.S. population-level impact of two alternatives for initial type 2 diabetes screening [opportunistic random plasma glucose (RPG) > 6.7 mmol/l and a 1-h 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) > 8.9 mmol/l] compared with American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended tests. METHODS: Using a sample (n = 1471) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014 that represented 145 million U.S. adults at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes, we simulated a two-test screening process. We compared ADA-recommended screening tests [fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), HbA1c ] vs. initial screening with opportunistic RPG or GCT (followed by FPG, OGTT or HbA1c ). After simulation, participants were entered into an individual-level Monte Carlo-based Markov lifetime outcomes model. Primary outcomes were representative number of U.S. adults correctly identified with type 2 diabetes, societal lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: In NHANES 2013-2014, 100 individuals had undiagnosed diabetes [weighted estimate: 8.4 million, standard error (se): 1.1 million]. Among ADA-recommended screening tests, FPG followed by OGTT (FPG-OGTT) was most sensitive, identifying 35 individuals with undiagnosed diabetes (weighted estimate: 3.2 million, se: 0.9 million). Four alternative screening strategies performed superior to FPG-OGTT, with RPG followed by OGTT being the most sensitive overall, identifying 72 individuals with undiagnosed diabetes (weighted estimate: 6.1 million, se: 1.0 million). There was no increase in average lifetime costs and comparable QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Initial screening using opportunistic RPG or a GCT may identify more U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes without increasing societal costs.
Authors: Manan Pareek; Deepak L Bhatt; Mette L Nielsen; Ram Jagannathan; Karl-Fredrik Eriksson; Peter M Nilsson; Michael Bergman; Michael H Olsen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: S L Jackson; S E Safo; L R Staimez; D E Olson; K M V Narayan; Q Long; J Lipscomb; M K Rhee; P W F Wilson; A M Tomolo; L S Phillips Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas J Hoerger; Russell Harris; Katherine A Hicks; Katrina Donahue; Stephen Sorensen; Michael Engelgau Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Neda Laiteerapong; Sandra A Ham; Yue Gao; Howard H Moffet; Jennifer Y Liu; Elbert S Huang; Andrew J Karter Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 17.152