256: Can we really diagnose type 2 diabetes during pregnancy?

Burlingame, Janet; Brink-Wong, Teresa; Rocha, Frederico G.; Tsai, Shirley C.; Shaha, Steven H.; Bartholomew, Lisa

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.274

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prevalence of previously undiagnosed T2D in women is reported to be 1.1%. 12 This rate was multiplied by a sensitivity of the HbA1c test of 40%, 14 reducing the rate to 0.4%. This means that less than 1% (n=409) of the women going through the model will have undetected T2D.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of the New Zealand diabetes in pregnancy guideline screening recommendations

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 possible screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) from the perspective of the New Zealand health system, developed as part of a gestational diabetes guideline.DesignA decision analytic model was built comparing 2-step screening (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) test at first booking and a 2 h 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as a single test at 24–28 weeks) with 3-step screening (HbA1c test at first booking and a 1 h glucose challenge test (GCT) followed by a 2 h 75 g OGTT when indicated from 24–28 weeks) using a 9-month time horizon.SettingA hypothetical cohort of 62 000 pregnant women in New Zealand.MethodsProbabilities, costs and benefits were derived from the literature, and supplementary data was obtained from National Women's Annual Clinical Reports. Main outcome measures, screening and treatment costs (NZ$2013) and effect on health outcomes (incidence of complications).ResultsThe total cost for both strategies under baseline assumptions shows that the 2-step screening strategy would cost NZ$1.38 m more than the 3-step screening strategy overall. The additional cost per case detected was NZ$12 460 per case. The model found that the 2-step screening strategy identifies 12 more women with diabetes and 111 more women with GDM when compared against the 3-step screening strategy. We assessed the effect of changing the sensitivity and specificity of the OGTT. The baseline model assumed that the 2 h 75 g OGTT has a sensitivity and specificity of 95%. The 2-step strategy becomes more cost-effective when the diagnostic accuracy measures are improved.ConclusionsAdopting a 2-step strategy would moderately increase the number of GDM cases detected at the same time as moderately increasing the number of women with false negatives at a significant cost to the health system. Further evidence on the benefits of the 2 different approaches would be welcome.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%