Comparisons of Validity and Costs of Screening Strategies for Type 2 Diabetes: Population-Based Studies in Shanghai, China

Yanyun Li,Huiru Jiang,Minna Cheng,Hua Zhang,Yan Shi,Wanghong Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3449345

2019-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Objectives: To compare validity and costs of various assumed screening strategies for type 2 diabetes among Chinese adults, and thus identify optimal ones for the population.Methods: Two population-based surveys were conducted in Shanghai, China, in 2009 and 2017 using multistage sampling design. All participants were interviewed, had anthropometry, measured fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A1c (A1c). Those with FPG<7·0 mmol/L had oral glucose tolerance tests. Youden index and costs of multiple strategies were estimated using the 2009 survey data as a training set, and validated based on the 2017 survey. A 2-fold cross-validation was further performed.Results: Included in this analysis were 6,649 participants of the 2009 survey and 16,103 subjects of the 2017 survey who were 35-74 years and had no prior diabetes. FPG≥6·0 mmol/L alone performed well and cost least under the WHO criteria, followed by the strategy of risk score≥17 followed by FPG≥5·6 mmol/l in cost. When using the ADA criteria, strategy of risk score≥20 followed by A1c≥5·9% was valid and had the lowest cost in both training and validation sets. A1c≥6·0% alone also had a decent Youden index, but with a slightly higher cost. 2-fold cross-validation supported the use of FPG≥6·0 mmol/L alone under the WHO criteria, and the strategies of FPG≥5·0 mmol/l followed by A1c≥6·0% or A1c≥6·0% alone under the ADA criteria.Conclusions: In view of validity and cost, risk score can be combining used with FPG or A1c assays but not superior to the tests alone in diabetes screening among Chinese adults.Funding Statement: This study was funded by the Three-year Action Plan on Public Health, Phase IV, Shanghai, China (15GWZK0801).Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: The Institutional Review Board at Shanghai Municipal Center of Disease Control and Prevention approved both surveys. Informed written consent was obtained from each participant before interview and bio-specimen collection.