From time to time I am asked about universal versus selective screening for type 2 diabetes. The logic for universal screening goes something like: “The prevalence of diabetes is increasing by epidemic proportions. We have increasingly been able to show that treatment of diabetes and its associated cardiovascular risk factors can prevent future vascular disease. Even in developed societies 20-30% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed. Wouldn’t we be better off identifying persons with diabetes?”
There are several ways to approach this issue. First let’s look at the issues of universal screening versus selective screening from a cost-effectiveness perspective. We have finite resources. How can we best spend them? An example of this approach was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, in a study called Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, which concluded that ”diabetes screening targeted to people with hypertension is more cost-effective than universal screening. The most cost-effective strategy is targeted screening at age 55 to 75 years.”
Based on this and similar studies the US Preventative Services Task Force recommended screening in the presence of hypertension or pre=hypertension (blood pressure equal to or greater that 135/80 mm Hg), but not universal screening.
But what about all the evidence that we can prevent vascular complications by early diagnosis and aggressive treatment? Nathan and Herman addressed that issue in an editorial in the same issue of the Annals. They concluded that taking into account the prevention of complications universal screening becomes cost-effective. However, this conclusion assumes nearly ideal preventative treatment of diabetes and its cardiovascular risk factors at diagnosis. They therefore tempered their advocacy of universal screening as follows:
“Unfortunately, the current state of delivery of care to persons with diagnosed diabetes in the United States does not bode well for the treatment of patients identified through screening. Many published “report cards” of diabetes care have shown that the treatment of glycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia and surveillance of foot and eye complications occur at far below recommended levels (20). Unless we optimize care after we diagnose diabetes, screening cannot be effective or cost-effective.”(Annals of Internal Medicine May 4, 2004, 140:756-758)
This conclusion was based upon the paper A Diabetes Report Card for the United States: Quality of Care in the 1990s, which concluded that “according to U.S. data collected during 1988–1995, a gap exists between recommended diabetes care and the care patients actually receive. These data offer a benchmark for monitoring changes in diabetes care.”
There has been no compelling evidence since this study was published to suggest that we are treating diabetes and its cardiovascular risk factors better today than in 2002. I conclude that the CDC’s recommendations for screening make the most clinical and scientific sense. They are based upon a technical review cited below:
“Based on the results of this study, opportunistic screening can be considered by health care delivery systems. However, screening outside the clinic setting is not warranted. It is also noted that people with symptoms of diabetes and those who have clinical signs and symptoms of diabetes should be tested and diagnosed. When people have signs or symptoms that suggest diabetes, clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion and pursue diagnostic testing. This activity is considered to be an appropriate diagnostic effort and shows good clinical care. Screening only applies to people who are truly asymptomatic.”
Universal screening does not make sense in our imperfect world. Screening in clinical settings is the most cost-effective approach. Age, weight, family and personal history and the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors should be taken into consideration.
Source: BMJ blog