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
. 2021 Jan 19:11:588309.
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.588309. eCollection 2020.

Cost-Effectiveness of Point-of-Care A1C Tests in a Primary Care Setting

Affiliations

Cost-Effectiveness of Point-of-Care A1C Tests in a Primary Care Setting

Lorena de Sousa Rosa et al. Front Pharmacol. .

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the point-of-care A1c (POC-A1c) test device vs. the traditional laboratory dosage in a primary care setting for people living with type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods: The Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was based on data from the HealthRise project, in which a group of interventions was implemented to improve diabetes and hypertension control in the primary care network of the urban area of a Brazilian municipality. A POC-A1c device was provided to be used directly in a primary care unit, and for a period of 18 months, 288 patients were included in the point-of-care group, and 1,102 were included in the comparison group. Sensitivity analysis was performed via Monte Carlo simulation and tornado diagram. Results: The results indicated that the POC-A1c device used in the primary care unit was a cost-effective alternative, which improved access to A1c tests and resulted in an increased rate of early control of blood glucose. In the 10-year period, POC-A1c group presented a mean cost of US$10,503.48 per patient and an effectiveness of 0.35 vs. US$9,992.35 and 0.09 for the traditional laboratory test, respectively. The incremental cost was US$511.13 and the incremental effectiveness was 0.26, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1,947.10. In Monte Carlo simulation, costs and effectiveness ranged between $9,663.20-$10,683.53 and 0.33-0.37 for POC-A1c test group, and $9,288.28-$10,413.99 and 0.08-0.10 for traditional laboratory test group, at 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. The costs for nephropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular disease and the probability of being hospitalized due to diabetes presented the greatest impact on the model's result. Conclusion: This study showed that using POC-A1c devices in primary care settings is a cost-effective alternative for monitoring glycated hemoglobin A1c as a marker of blood glucose control in people living with type 2 diabetes. According to our model, the use of POC-A1c device in a healthcare unit increased the early control of type 2 diabetes and, consequently, reduced the costs of diabetes-related outcomes, in comparison with a centralized laboratory test.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness; diabetes mellitus; glycated hemoglobin A; low and middle-income countries; point-of-care testing; primary health care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Schematic flowchart of the Markov model used to assess Cost-effectiveness of the POC vs. traditional A1c tests in a primary care setting.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis by Monte Carlo simulation with the variation of the Net Monetary Benefit vs. Willingness-to-Pay (left) and incremental cost-effectiveness scatter plot (right).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
One-way sensitivity analysis by a tornado diagram ranking variables by the impact of the results on the economic model with a Willingness-to-Pay threshold of US$2,000.00.

References

    1. Ali S. N., Dang-Tan T., Valentine W. J., Hansen B. B. (2020). Evaluation of the clinical and economic burden of poor glycemic control associated with therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States. Adv. Ther. 37, 869–882. 10.1007/s12325-019-01199-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alonso-Fernández M., Mancera-Romero J., Mediavilla-Bravo J. J., Comas-Samper J. M., López-Simarro F., Pérez-Unanua M. P., et al. (2015). Glycemic control and use of A1c in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Prim. Care Diabetes 9, 385–391. 10.1016/j.pcd.2015.01.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bahia L. R., da Rosa M. Q. M., Araujo D. V., Correia M. G., Dos Rosa R. D. S., Duncan B. B., et al. (2019). Economic burden of diabetes in Brazil in 2014. Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. 11, 54 10.1186/s13098-019-0448-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bao X., Yang C., Fang K., Shi M., Yu G., Hu Y. (2017). Hospitalization costs and complications in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Beijing, China. J. Diabetes 9, 405–411. 10.1111/1753-0407.12428 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Borges N. B., Ferraz M. B., Chacra A. R. (2014). The cost of type 2 diabetes in Brazil: evaluation of a diabetes care center in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. 6 (1), 122 10.1186/1758-5996-6-122 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources