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
Comparative Study
. 2013 Jan;167(1):32-9.
doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.419.

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

En-Ling Wu  1 , Nayla G Kazzi, Joyce M Lee
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

En-Ling Wu et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening strategies for identifying children with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dysglycemia (prediabetes/diabetes).

Design: Cost simulation study.

Setting: A one-time US screening program.

Study participants: A total of 2.5 million children aged 10 to 17 years.

Intervention: Screening strategies for identifying diabetes and dysglycemia.

Main outcome measures: Effectiveness (proportion of cases identified), total costs (direct and indirect), and efficiency (cost per case identified) of each screening strategy based on test performance data from a pediatric cohort and cost data from Medicare and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Results: In the base-case model, 500 and 400 000 US adolescents had diabetes and dysglycemia, respectively. For diabetes, the cost per case was extremely high ($312 000-$831 000 per case identified) because of the low prevalence of disease. For dysglycemia, the cost per case was in a more reasonable range. For dysglycemia, preferred strategies were the 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (100% effectiveness; $390 per case), 1-hour glucose challenge test (63% effectiveness; $571), random glucose test (55% effectiveness; $498), or a hemoglobin A1c threshold of 5.5% (45% effectiveness; $763). Hemoglobin A1c thresholds of 5.7% and 6.5% were the least effective and least efficient (ranges, 7%-32% and $938-$3370) of all strategies evaluated. Sensitivity analyses for diabetes revealed that disease prevalence was a major driver of cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses for dysglycemia did not lead to appreciable changes in overall rankings among tests.

Conclusions: For diabetes, the cost per case is extremely high because of the low prevalence of the disease in the pediatric population. Screening for diabetes could become more cost-effective if dysglycemia is explicitly considered as a screening outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screening effectiveness for diabetes (percentage of cases identified) plotted against screening efficiency (costs per case identified) from a societal perspective. A, Base-case analysis; B, alternative estimates of hemoglobin Alc (HbAlc) test performance. OGTT indicates oral glucose tolerance test.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Screening effectiveness for dysglycemia (percentage of cases identified) plotted against screening efficiency (costs per case identified) from a societal perspective. A, Base-case analysis; B, alternative estimates of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test performance. GCT indicates glucose challenge test; and OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. American Diabetes Association. Type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2000;105(3 pt 1):671–680. - PubMed
    1. Rhodes ET, Finkelstein JA, Marshall R, Allen C, Gillman MW, Ludwig DS. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in children and adolescents: attitudes, barriers, and practices among pediatric clinicians. Ambul Pediatr. 2006;6(2):110–114. - PubMed
    1. Anand SG, Mehta SD, Adams WG. Diabetes mellitus screening in pediatric primary care. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):1888–1895. - PubMed
    1. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(suppl 1):S62–S69. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of obesity in the United States, 2009–2010. NCHS Data Brief. 2012;(82):1–8. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms