Can a semi-quantitative method replace the current quantitative method for the annual screening of microalbuminuria in patients with diabetes? Diagnostic accuracy and cost-saving analysis considering the potential health burden

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Monitoring of Long-Term Conditions in Primary Care: Informing Decision Modelling with a Systematic Review in Hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Long-term conditions (LTCs) are major public health problems with a considerable health-related and economic burden. Modelling is key in assessing costs and benefits of different disease management strategies, including routine monitoring, in the conditions of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to identify published model-based cost-effectiveness studies of routine laboratory testing strategies in these LTCs to inform a model evaluating the cost effectiveness of testing strategies in the UK.

METHODS

We searched the Medline and Embase databases from inception to July 2023; the National Institute for Health and Care Institute (NICE) website was also searched. Studies were included if they were model-based economic evaluations, evaluated testing strategies, assessed regular testing, and considered adults aged >16 years. Studies identified were summarised by testing strategies, model type, structure, inputs, assessment of uncertainty, and conclusions drawn.

RESULTS

Five studies were included in the review, i.e. Markov (n = 3) and microsimulation (n = 2) models. Models were applied within T2DM (n = 2), hypertension (n = 1), T2DM/hypertension (n = 1) and CKD (n = 1). Comorbidity between all three LTCs was modelled to varying extents. All studies used a lifetime horizon, except for a 10-year horizon T2DM model, and all used quality-adjusted life-years as the effectiveness outcome, except a TD2M model that used glycaemic control. No studies explicitly provided a rationale for their selected modelling approach. UK models were available for diabetes and CKD, but these compared only a limited set of routine monitoring tests and frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few studies comparing routine testing strategies in the UK, indicating a need to develop a novel model in all three LTCs. Justification for the modelling technique of the identified studies was lacking. Markov and microsimulation models, with and without comorbidities, were used; however, the findings of this review can provide data sources and inform modelling approaches for evaluating the cost effectiveness of testing strategies in all three LTCs.

Urine Albumin Measurements in Clinical Diagnostics

BACKGROUND

Measurement of urine albumin is critical for diagnosis, risk classification, and monitoring of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Guidelines recommend clinical decision cutoffs for the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) of 30 and 300 mg/g (3 and 30 mg/mmol). However, differences among manufacturers' routine urine albumin measurement procedures have been found to exceed 40%, suggesting CKD diagnosis and risk classification may vary depending upon the specific measurement procedure implemented in the laboratory.

CONTENT

This review discusses urine albumin pathophysiology and clinical practice guideline recommendations for CKD. The review also provides recommendations for urine specimen collection and storage, and results reporting for the ACR. Recent advances in measurement techniques and development of reference systems intended to facilitate standardization of urine albumin measurements are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Urine albumin is an important measurement procedure used for diagnosis, risk classification, and management of CKD. Urine albumin results should be reported as the ACR using quantitative measurement procedures. Random urine collections used for albuminuria screening should be followed by confirmation with first morning void collections to reduce variation and increase diagnostic accuracy for urine albumin measurement. Most measurement procedures utilize immunoturbidimetric or immunonephelometric techniques. However, results vary significantly among measurement procedures, potentially resulting in differences in classification or risk assessment for CKD. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and other laboratories are developing reference systems, including liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry candidate reference measurement procedures and reference materials, to enable standardization of routine measurement procedures.

Screening, identifying, and treating chronic kidney disease: why, who, when, how, and what?

1 in 7 American adults have chronic kidney disease (CKD); a disease that increases risk for CKD progression, cardiovascular events, and mortality. Currently, the US Preventative Services Task Force does not have a screening recommendation, though evidence suggests that screening can prevent progression and is cost-effective. Populations at risk for CKD, such as those with hypertension, diabetes, and age greater than 50 years should be targeted for screening. CKD is diagnosed and risk stratified with estimated glomerular filtration rate utilizing serum creatinine and measuring urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio. Once identified, CKD is staged according to C-G-A classification, and managed with lifestyle modification, interdisciplinary care and the recently expanding repertoire of pharmacotherapy which includes angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-II receptor blockers, sodium-glucose-cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and mineralocorticorticoid receptor antagonists. In this paper, we present the why, who, when, how, and what of CKD screening.

Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially.

APPROACH

An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Diagnostic accuracy of urine dipstick testing for albumin-to-creatinine ratio and albuminuria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The accuracy of urine dipsticks to detect increased albuminuria is uncertain. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipsticks for detecting albuminuria.

Methods

A systematic review of studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipstick testing for detecting albuminuria has been conducted (using as reference standard the albuminuria in a 24-hour sample or the albumin-to-creatinine ratio) in Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The risk of bias of the included studies has been assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Whenever possible, we performed meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity. The certainty of the evidence has also been assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

Results

A total of 14 studies have been included in this review, having assessed all albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) as assessed standard. Each study used different dipstick types. The resulting pooled sensitivity and specificity for each cutoff point were as follows: for ACR >30 mg/g (13 studies): 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76–0.87) and 0.88 (0.83–0.91); for ACR 30–300 mg/g (7 studies): 0.72 (0.68–0.77) and 0.82 (0.76–0.89); and for ACR >300 mg/g (7 studies): 0.84 (0.71–0.90) and 0.97 (0.95–0.99), respectively. An overall high risk of bias, an important heterogeneity in all pooled analysis, and a very low certainty of the evidence have been found.

Conclusions

Pooled sensitivity and specificity of urine dipsticks have been calculated for different ACR cutoff points. However, the dipstick types differed across studies, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Thus, further well-designed studies are needed to reach more confident estimates and to assess accuracy differences across dipstick types.

Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42019124637).