AUTHOR=Rosa Lorena de Sousa , Mistro Sóstenes , Oliveira Marcio Galvão , Kochergin Clavdia Nickolaevna , Cortes Mateus Lopes , Medeiros Danielle Souto de , Soares Daniela Arruda , Louzado José Andrade , Silva Kelle Oliveira , Bezerra Vanessa Moraes , Amorim Welma Wildes , Barone Mark , Passos Luiz Carlos
TITLE=Cost-Effectiveness of Point-of-Care A1C Tests in a Primary Care Setting
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Pharmacology
VOLUME=11
YEAR=2021
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.588309
DOI=10.3389/fphar.2020.588309
ISSN=1663-9812
ABSTRACT=Objective: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the point-of-care A1c (POC-A1c) test device vs. the traditional laboratory dosage in a primary care setting for people living with type 2 diabetes.
Materials and Methods: The Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was based on data from the HealthRise project, in which a group of interventions was implemented to improve diabetes and hypertension control in the primary care network of the urban area of a Brazilian municipality. A POC-A1c device was provided to be used directly in a primary care unit, and for a period of 18 months, 288 patients were included in the point-of-care group, and 1,102 were included in the comparison group. Sensitivity analysis was performed via Monte Carlo simulation and tornado diagram.
Results: The results indicated that the POC-A1c device used in the primary care unit was a cost-effective alternative, which improved access to A1c tests and resulted in an increased rate of early control of blood glucose. In the 10-year period, POC-A1c group presented a mean cost of US$10,503.48 per patient and an effectiveness of 0.35 vs. US$9,992.35 and 0.09 for the traditional laboratory test, respectively. The incremental cost was US$511.13 and the incremental effectiveness was 0.26, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1,947.10. In Monte Carlo simulation, costs and effectiveness ranged between $9,663.20–$10,683.53 and 0.33–0.37 for POC-A1c test group, and $9,288.28–$10,413.99 and 0.08–0.10 for traditional laboratory test group, at 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. The costs for nephropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular disease and the probability of being hospitalized due to diabetes presented the greatest impact on the model’s result.
Conclusion: This study showed that using POC-A1c devices in primary care settings is a cost-effective alternative for monitoring glycated hemoglobin A1c as a marker of blood glucose control in people living with type 2 diabetes. According to our model, the use of POC-A1c device in a healthcare unit increased the early control of type 2 diabetes and, consequently, reduced the costs of diabetes-related outcomes, in comparison with a centralized laboratory test.