Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nicholson, W. K.
Right arrow Articles by Powe, N. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nicholson, W. K.
Right arrow Articles by Powe, N. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Diabetes Care 28:1482-1484, 2005
© 2005 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc.

Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition
Brief Report

Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

A decision and cost-effectiveness analysis of four screening strategies

Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, MPH1,2, Lee A. Fleisher, MD3, Harold E. Fox, MD, MHS1 and Neil R. Powe, MD, MPH, MBA4,5,6

1 Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
2 Department of Population and Family Health Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
3 Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4 Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
5 Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
6 Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland

Address correspondencereprint requests to Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, Department of GynecologyObstetrics, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe St., Phipps 247, Baltimore, MD 21287. E-mail: wnichol{at}jhmi.edu

Abbreviations: GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus • GTT, glucose tolerance test • QALY, quality-adjusted life-year


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), defined as carbohydrate intolerance of variable degree with onset or first recognition during pregnancy, is the most common medical condition of pregnancy. GDM affects ~190,000 (4–5%) of the >4 million births occurring annually in the U.S. and is associated with several maternal and infant complications (1). Worldwide, the three primary screening strategies for GDM are the sequential strategy (initial 50-g glucose challenge test followed by, in those who test positive, a 100-g glucose tolerance test [GTT]), the 75-g GTT strategy, and the 100-g GTT strategy (2). The efficacy of these strategies, however, is debated. There are few randomized trials on the effectiveness of GDM screening (3). Yet, the majority of U.S. obstetricians provide universal screening for GDM (4).

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare four screening strategies for universal screening of GDM, including the sequential strategy, the 75- and 100-g GTT, and a no-screening strategy. We assessed the relative cost and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of each strategy relative to the sequential strategy using a decision model.


   RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
We performed a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective that incorporates all health effects and medical resources consumed regardless of who pays (5). Separate cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for mothers and infants. Maternal outcomes were hypertensive disease, polyhydramnios, cesarean or vaginal delivery, and the potential complications of cesarean and vaginal delivery. Complications included operative injury, endometritis, deep vein thrombosis, severe hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, and hysterectomy. Neonatal outcomes were mild hypoglycemia (≤50 g/dl requiring intravenous fluid and observation), macrosomia (birth weight >4,500 g), respiratory distress syndrome, shoulder dystocia, none/mild morbidity, moderate morbidity, and severe morbidity/infant death. Test effectiveness (sensitivity, specificity), GDM prevalence, clinical probabilities, and quality of life measures were obtained from the literature. We used the standard cutoff value of 140 mg/dl for the 50-g glucose challenge test (sensitivity 80%, specificity 86%) (6) and the World Health Organization 2-h threshold value (≥140 mg/dl) for the 75-g GTT (7). Because of limited data on the efficacy of the 75-g GTT in pregnancy, we used a baseline sensitivity and specificity of 80 and 86%, respectively, but varied sensitivity and specificity to 100% (8). Modified threshold levels were used for the 100-g GTT (fasting <95 mg/dl, 1 h 180 mg/dl, 2 h 155 mg/dl, 3 h 145 mg/dl), and a sensitivity and specificity of 100% was assumed (9).

Costs for maternal and infant care were estimated using the 2003 Medicare resource-based relative value units (10) and the 1997–2001 Maryland Health Care Commission Database (11). This database contains clinical and cost information on hospital discharges for maternity care within the state. Hospital charges were converted to costs using cost-to-charge ratios (12). Physician and hospital costs were adjusted to 2003 dollars based on the annual medical care component of the Consumer Price Index (14).

The model incorporates three maternal health states: perfect health (utility: 1.0), perfect health following hysterectomy (0.9), and maternal death (0). There were three neonatal health states: none/mild morbidity (utility: 1), moderate morbidity (0.7), and severe morbidity/neonatal death (0) (13,14). QALYs for both mothers and infants were then calculated by combining the utility estimates with the 2003 life table data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Costs and utilities were discounted 3% per year (5). Indirect costs, including lost productivity and wages for an average U.S. female worker, were estimated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (15).

In the base-case analysis, the cost-effectiveness of screening a 30-year-old pregnant woman between 24 and 28 weeks gestation was estimated with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressed as QALYs gained. A strategy was considered "dominated" if it was both more costly and less effective than its comparative strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed in which model parameters (e.g., GDM prevalence, probabilities, utilities, costs) were changed individually to bias them in favor or against screening with the sequential strategy. Cost-effectiveness ratios of <$50,000/QALY were considered highly favorable toward a particular screening strategy (5).


   RESULTS
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
With a GDM prevalence of 4%, the sequential strategy (reference strategy) was the least costly strategy for mothers and infants (Table 1). Absolute cost and effectiveness of the sequential strategy was $2,836.00 and 25.9219 QALYs for maternal outcomes and $77.00 and 29.9177 QALYs for infant outcomes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1— Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for GDM*

 
The cost-effectiveness ratio for the 100-g strategy compared with the sequential strategy was highly favorable for both maternal outcomes ($32,374 per QALYs saved) and neonatal outcomes ($8,251 per QALYs saved), respectively. The 75-g strategy was more costly and less effective (dominated) compared with the sequential strategy for maternal and neonatal outcomes. The no-screening strategy was less effective (–0.002) and more costly ($158.80) relative to the sequential strategy, probably due to the additional cost and disutility in unrecognized cases (40 per 1,000) of GDM.


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
References
 
The sequential screening method was the most cost-effective strategy. Because the 100-g strategy had a highly favorable cost-effectiveness ratio, it may be useful in populations where GDM is more prevalent (e.g., Hispanics) to avoid the need for subsequent confirmatory testing. Future screening guidelines might incorporate the prevalence of GDM in different racial groups. While the no-screening strategy has no upfront screening costs, the initial cost savings is not sufficient to overcome the cost and disutility of potential obstetrical complications.

There are limitations to this study, most notably the lack of well-established test parameters for the 75-g GTT in pregnancy and the paucity of data on newborn health utilities. However, the cost-effectiveness ratios for screening strategies were not highly influenced at the extremes of our estimates in sensitivity analyses. We recognize that the probability of maternal or neonatal outcomes is dependent on the severity of glucose intolerance (16). Pregnancies with mild GDM controlled by diet alone or false-negative cases with mild glucose intolerance may have outcomes similar to normal pregnancy. Finally, the analysis does not include potential effects of the intrauterine environment on the long-term health of the offspring.

We conclude that conventional use of the sequential strategy is the preferred strategy followed by the 100-g GTT. The 75-g GTT and the no-screening strategy are not currently viable screening methods.


   Acknowledgments
 
W.K.N. is supported by the Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Award of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a Patient-Oriented Mentored Research Scientist Award (1K23DK067944) from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. N.R.P. is supported in part by K24-DK-02643 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.


   Footnotes
 
A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

Received for publication December 17, 2004. Accepted for publication February 21, 2005.


   References
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 

  1. Gabbe SG, Graves C: Management of diabetes mellitus complicating pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 102:857–868, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. American Diabetes Association: Gestational diabetes mellitus (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 27(Suppl. 1):S88–S90, 2004[Medline]
  3. Brody SC, Harris R, Lohr K: Screening for gestational diabetes: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Obstet Gynecol 101:380–392, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Gabbe SG, Hill L, Schmidt L, Schulkin J: Management of diabetes by obstetrician-gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol 91:643–647, 1998[Abstract]
  5. Russell L, Gold M, Siegel J, Daniels N, Winstein M: The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine: panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276:1172–1177, 1996[Abstract]
  6. O’Sullivan JB, Mahan C: Criteria for the oral glucose tolerance test in pregnancy. Diabetes 13:278–285, 1964
  7. World Health Organization: Definition, Diagnosis, and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus and its Complications: Report of a WHO Consultation. Part 1: Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Geneva, World Health Org., 1999 (WHO/NCD/NCS/99.2)
  8. Poncet B, Touzet S, Rocher L, Berland M, Orgiazzi J, Colin C: Cost-effectiveness analysis of gestational diabetes mellitus screening in France. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 103:122–129, 2002[Medline]
  9. Carpenter MW, Coustan D: Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 144:768–773, 1982[Medline]
  10. Health Care Financing Administration OACT, Office of National Statistics, New York, DRI/McGraw-Hill HCC, 2003
  11. Maryland Health Care Commission Hospital Discharge Data, 1997–2001. Baltimore, MD, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2003
  12. Health Services Cost Review Commission Annual Cost Filings and Approved Rate Orders, 1997–2001. Baltimore, MD, Maryland Health Care Commission, 2003
  13. Chung A, Macario A, El-Sayed Y, Riley E, Duncan G, Druzin M: Cost-effectiveness of a trial of labor after previous cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 97:932–941, 2000
  14. Waitzman NJ, Romano P, Scheffler RM, Harris JA: Economic costs of birth defects and cerebral palsy-1992. MMWR44:694–699, 1995[Medline]
  15. Bureau of the Census: Summary of population and wage earnings: Maryland, Washington, DC [article online], 2003. Available from http://www.bls.gov. Accessed 4 October 2004
  16. Langer O, Anyaegbunam A, Brustman L, Divon M: Management of women with one abnormal oral glucose tolerance test value reduces adverse outcome in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 161:593–599, 1989

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nicholson, W. K.
Right arrow Articles by Powe, N. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nicholson, W. K.
Right arrow Articles by Powe, N. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum