# Point-of-care Testing HbA1c screening for type 2 diabetes in urban and rural areas of China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

## TL;DR

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of point-of-care HbA1c testing for diabetes screening in urban and rural China, finding it to be a cost-effective option compared to other methods.

## Contribution

The first study to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of three diabetes screening methods in China's urban and rural areas.

## Key findings

- POCT HbA1c was cost-effective compared to FCG and venous blood HbA1c in both urban and rural areas.
- Venous blood HbA1c was cost-effective in urban areas but not in rural areas.
- Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability and credibility of the results.

## Abstract

Point-of-care Testing (POCT) glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a convenient, cheap, effective and accessible screening method for type 2 diabetes in rural areas and community settings that is widely used in the European region and Japan, but not yet widespread in China. The study is the first to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of POCT HbA1c, fasting capillary glucose (FCG), and venous blood HbA1c to screen for type 2 diabetes in urban and rural areas of China, and to identify the best socio-economically beneficial screening strategy.

Based on urban and rural areas in China, economic models for type 2 diabetes screening were constructed from a social perspective. The subjects of this study were adults aged 18–80 years with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. Three screening strategies were established for venous blood HbA1c, FCG and POCT HbA1c, and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by Markov models. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed on all parameters of the model to verify the stability of the results.

Compared with FCG, POCT HbA1c was cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $500.06/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in urban areas and an ICUR of $185.10/QALY in rural areas, within the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP = $37,653). POCT HbA1c was cost-effective with lower cost and higher utility compared with venous blood HbA1c in both urban and rural areas. In the comparison of venous blood HbA1c and FCG, venous blood HbA1c was cost-effective (ICUR = $20,833/QALY) in urban areas but not in rural areas (ICUR = $41,858/QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were stable and credible.

POCT HbA1c was cost-effective for type 2 diabetes screening in both urban and rural areas of China, which could be considered for future clinical practice in China. Factors such as geographic location, local financial situation and resident compliance needed to be considered when making the choice of venous blood HbA1c or FCG.