Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: cost-utility of different screening strategies based on a woman's individual risk of disease.
OBJECTIVE
The cost-effectiveness of eight strategies for screening for gestational diabetes (including no screening) was estimated with respect to the level of individual patient risk.


METHODS
Cost-utility analysis using a decision analytic model populated with efficacy evidence pooled from recent randomised controlled trials, from the funding perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. Seven screening strategies using various combinations of screening and diagnostic tests were tested in addition to no screening. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime.


RESULTS
The strategy that has the greatest likelihood of being cost-effective is dependent on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus for each individual woman. When gestational diabetes mellitus risk is <1% then the no screening/treatment strategy is cost-effective; where risk is between 1.0% and 4.2% fasting plasma glucose followed by OGTT is most likely to be cost-effective; and where risk is >4.2%, universal OGTT is most likely to be cost-effective. However, acceptability of the test alters the most cost-effective strategy.


CONCLUSIONS
Screening for gestational diabetes can be cost-effective. The best strategy is dependent on the underlying risk of each individual and the acceptability of the tests used. The current study suggests that if a woman's individual risk of gestational diabetes could be accurately predicted, then healthcare resource allocation could be improved by providing an individualised screening strategy.
Round
J A
JA
Academic Unit of Health Economics, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. j.round@medsch.ucl.ac.uk
Jacklin
P
P
Fraser
R B
RB
Hughes
R G
RG
Mugglestone
M A
MA
Holt
R I G
RI
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D016640:Diabetes, Gestational / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000191:economics*; D011247:Pregnancy; D012307:Risk Factors
N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 1;361(14):1339-48
19797280
Med J Aust. 1998 Jul 20;169(2):93-7
9700346
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005 Jan-Feb;16(1):19-28; discussion 28
15647962
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Mar;178(3):423-7
9539501
Diabetes Care. 2010 Mar;33(3):676-82
20190296
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Nov 1;141(5):491-4
7294074
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995 Mar;48(3):331-9
7781883
J Fam Pract. 1987 Dec;25(6):569-75
3681218
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 16;352(24):2477-86
15951574
J Fam Pract. 1984 Dec;19(6):751-5
6502080
J Assoc Physicians India. 2004 Sep;52:707-11
15839447
Diabetes. 1985 Jun;34 Suppl 2:101-5
3888734
Diabetes Care. 2005 Mar;28(3):579-84
15735191
Diabetes Care. 1997 Jul;20(7):1183-97
9203460
N Engl J Med. 2000 Oct 19;343(16):1134-8
11036118
BMJ. 2010 Apr 01;340:c1395
20360215
Diabetes Care. 1998 Aug;21(8):1246-9
9702428
Diabetes Care. 1995 Jan;18(1):127-9
7698033
Diabetes Care. 2005 Jun;28(6):1482-4
15920072
Acta Diabetol. 2002 Jun;39(2):69-73
12120916
Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(11):1-161
12433317
Health Technol Assess. 2008 Mar;12(6):iii-iv, 1-270
18331705
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Jan;83(1):46-51
14678085
Diabetes. 2002 Sep;51(9):2796-803
12196473
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002 Jul 10;103(2):122-9
12069733
BJOG. 2010 Jan;117(1):69-75
20002371
Diabet Med. 2006 Feb;23(2):189-97
16433718