1. Exploring Structural Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Gestational Diabetes Screening: An Application Example from Norway.
- Author
-
Henkel PS, Burger EA, Sletner L, and Pedersen K
- Subjects
- Humans, Pregnancy, Female, Norway, Uncertainty, Decision Trees, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 diagnosis, Diabetes, Gestational diagnosis, Diabetes, Gestational economics, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Mass Screening economics, Mass Screening methods, Quality-Adjusted Life Years
- Abstract
Background: Screening pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has recently been expanded in Norway, although screening eligibility criteria continue to be debated. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative GDM screening strategies and explored structural uncertainty and the value of future research in determining the most cost-effective eligibility criteria for GDM screening in Norway., Design: We developed a probabilistic decision tree to estimate the total costs and health benefits (i.e., quality-adjusted life-years; QALYs) associated with 4 GDM screening strategies (universal, current guidelines, high-risk, and no screening). We identified the most cost-effective strategy as the strategy with the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below a Norwegian benchmark for cost-effectiveness ($28,400/QALY). We excluded inconclusive evidence on the effects of screening on later maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the primary analysis but included this outcome in a secondary analysis using 2 different sources of evidence (i.e., Cochrane or US Preventive Services Task Force). To quantify decision uncertainty, we conducted scenario analysis and value-of-information analyses., Results: Current screening recommendations were considered inefficient in all analyses, while universal screening was most cost-effective in our primary analysis ($26,014/QALY gained) and remained most cost-effective when we assumed a preventive effect of GDM treatment on T2DM. When we assumed no preventive effect, high-risk screening was preferred ($19,115/QALY gained). When we assumed GDM screening does not prevent perinatal death in scenario analysis, all strategies except no screening exceeded the cost-effectiveness benchmark. In most analyses, decision uncertainty was high., Conclusions: The most cost-effective screening strategy, ranging from no screening to universal screening, depended on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on perinatal death and T2DM. Further research on these long-term outcomes could reduce decision uncertainty., Highlights: This article analyses the cost-effectiveness of 4 alternative gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening strategies in Norway: universal screening, current (broad) screening, high-risk screening, and no screening.The current Norwegian screening recommendations were considered inefficient under all analyses.The most cost-effective screening strategy ranged from no screening to universal screening depending on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on later maternal diabetes and perinatal death.The parameters related to later maternal diabetes and perinatal death accounted for most of the decision uncertainty., Competing Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: KP conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of gestational diabetes mellitus screening in Norway on behalf of the Norwegian Directorate of Health in 2021. As of January 1, 2024, LS is employed by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. Her appointment occurred during the review phase of this article, and the Directorate of Health was not involved in the conduction of our study or writing of this manuscript. PSH and EAB report no conflict of interest relevant to this analysis. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support for this study was provided by the University of Oslo for funding the acquisition of registry data. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF