Performance and costs of multiple screening strategies for type 2 diabetes: two population-based studies in Shanghai, China

Abstract

IntroductionTo compare the performance and the costs of various assumed screening strategies for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among Chinese adults, and identify an optimal one for the population.Research design and methodsTwo multistage-sampling surveys were conducted in Shanghai, China, in 2009 and 2017. All participants were interviewed, had anthropometry, measured fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hemoglobin A1c (A1c) and/or postprandial glucose. The 1999 WHO diagnostic criteria was used to identify undiagnosed T2DM. A previously developed Chinese risk assessment system and a specific risk assessment system developed in this study were applied to calculate diabetes risk score (DRS) 1 and 2. Optimal screening strategies were selected based on the sensitivity, Youden index and the costs using the 2009 survey data as the training set and the 2017 survey data as the validation set. A twofold cross-validation was also performed.ResultsOf numerous assumed strategies, FPG ≥5.6 mmol/L alone performed well (Youden index of 71.8%) and cost least (US$18.4 for each case detected), followed by the strategy of DRS2 ≥8 combining with FPG ≥5.6 mmol/L (Youden index of 71.7% and US$20.2 per case detected) and the strategy of DRS1 ≥17 combining with FPG ≥5.6 mmol/L (Youden index of 72.0% and US$21.6 per case detected). However, FPG alone resulted in more subjects requiring oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) than did combining with DRS. The strategy of FPG ≥5.6 mmol/L combining with A1c ≥4.7% achieved a Youden index of 72.1%, but had a cost as high as US$48.8 for each case identified. Twofold cross-validation also supported the use of FPG alone, but with an optimal cut-off of 6.1 mmol/L.ConclusionsOur results support the use of FPG alone in T2DM screening in Chinese adults. DRS may be used combining with FPG in populations with available electronic health records to reduce the number of OGTT and save costs of screening.