Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jul;33(7):1484-90.
doi: 10.2337/dc10-0054.

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

Affiliations

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

Ranee Chatterjee et al. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: The economic costs of hyperglycemia are substantial. Early detection would allow management to prevent or delay development of diabetes and diabetes-related complications. We investigated the economic justification for screening for pre-diabetes/diabetes.

Research design and methods: We projected health system and societal costs over 3 years for 1,259 adults, comparing costs associated with five opportunistic screening tests. All subjects had measurements taken of random plasma and capillary glucose (RPG and RCG), A1C, and plasma and capillary glucose 1 h after a 50 g oral glucose challenge test without prior fasting (GCT-pl and GCT-cap), and a subsequent diagnostic 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).

Results: Assuming 70% specificity screening cutoffs, Medicare costs for testing, retail costs for generic metformin, and costs for false negatives as 10% of reported costs associated with pre-diabetes/diabetes, health system costs over 3 years for the different screening tests would be GCT-pl $180,635; GCT-cap $182,980; RPG $182,780; RCG $186,090; and A1C $192,261; all lower than costs for no screening, which would be $205,966. Under varying assumptions, projected health system costs for screening and treatment with metformin or lifestyle modification would be less than costs for no screening as long as disease prevalence is at least 70% of that of our population and false-negative costs are at least 10% of disease costs. Societal costs would equal or exceed costs of no screening depending on treatment type.

Conclusions: Screening appears to be cost-saving compared to no screening from a health system perspective, and potentially cost-neutral from a societal perspective. These data suggest that strong consideration should be given to screening-with preventive management-and that use of GCTs may be cost-effective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Health system and societal costs associated with varied fractions of false-negative costs. Total health system and societal costs for each screening test and for no screening, which include costs of testing, false negatives, and treatment of true positives, assuming different fractions of false-negative costs that could be prevented with early detection of conditions.

Comment in

References

    1. American Diabetes Association. Executive summary: Standards of medical care in diabetes-2008. Diabetes Care 2008; 31(Suppl. 1): S5–S11 - PubMed
    1. Ealovega MW, Tabaei BP, Brandle M, Burke R, Herman WH: Opportunistic screening for diabetes in routine clinical practice. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 9–12 - PubMed
    1. Leiter LA, Barr A, Bélanger A, Lubin S, Ross SA, Tildesley HD, Fontaine N. Diabetes Screening in Canada (DIASCAN) Study. Diabetes Screening in Canada (DIASCAN) study: prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and glucose intolerance in family physician offices. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 1038–1043 - PubMed
    1. Kenealy T, Elley CR, Arroll B: Screening for diabetes and prediabetes. Lancet 2007; 370: 1888–1889 - PubMed
    1. Engelgau MM, Narayan KM, Herman WH: Screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 1563–1580 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms