The cost-effectiveness of testing strategies for type 2 diabetes: a modelling study

Gillett M, Brennan A, Watson P, Khunti K, Davies M, Mostafa S, Gray LJ
Record ID 32012000432
English
Authors' objectives: To estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes using a HbA1c test versus a FPG test. In addition, to compare the use of a random capillary glucose (RCG) test versus a non-invasive risk score to prioritise individuals who should undertake a HbA1c or FPG test.
Authors' recommendations: Based on the multiethnic LEADER population, among individuals currently attending NHS Health Checks, it is more cost-effective to screen for diabetes using a HbA1c test than using a FPG test. However, in some localities, the prevalence of diabetes and high risk of diabetes may be higher for FPG relative to HbA1c than in the LEADER cohort. In such cases, whether or not it still holds that HbA1c is likely to be more cost-effective than FPG depends on the relative uptake rates for HbA1c and FPG. Use of the LPDS appears to be more cost-effective than a RCG test for prescreening.
Details
Project Status: Completed
URL for project: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/1013301
Year Published: 2015
URL for published report: http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta19330/#/abstract
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: England, United Kingdom
MeSH Terms
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Glucose Tolerance Test
Contact
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Contact Email: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Copyright: Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.