Key result
New protocol evaluates cost-effectiveness of routine CAD screening in high-risk type 2 diabetes.
Why the study?
Screening for coronary artery disease remains broadly performed in patients with type 2 diabetes despite a lack of evidence on its clinical and economic impact.
Does routine CAD screening improve cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at very high cardiovascular risk?
Cohort (n=90,000)
Does routine CAD screening improve cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at very high cardiovascular risk?
The SCADIAB study will provide real-world evidence on the cost-effectiveness and clinical utility of routine CAD screening in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinical utility remains uncertain; this protocol leaves open whether routine CAD screening improves outcomes or cost-effectiveness in high-risk type 2 diabetes.
BACKGROUND: Screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) remains broadly performed in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), although the lack of evidence. We conduct a real-world evidence (RWE) study to assess the risk of major clinical outcomes and economic impact of routine CAD screening in T2DM individuals at a very high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: SCADIAB is a comparative nationwide cohort study using data from the French National Health Data System. The main inclusion criteria are: age ≥ 40 years, DT2 diagnosed for ≥ 7 years, with ≥ 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors plus a history of microvascular or macrovascular disease, except CAD. We estimated ≥ 90,000 eligible participants for our study. Data will be extracted from 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2019. Eligible participants will be identified during a first 7-year selection period (2008-2015). Each participant will be assigned either in experimental (CAD screening procedure during the selection period) or control group (no CAD screening) on 01/01/2015, and followed for 5 years. The primary endpoint is the incremental cost per life year saved over 5 years in CAD screening group versus no CAD screening. The main secondary endpoints are: total 5-year direct costs of each strategy; incidence of major cardiovascular (acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization for heart failure, coronary revascularization or all-cause death), cerebrovascular (hospitalization for transient ischemic attack, stroke, or carotid revascularization) and lower-limb events (peripheral artery disease, ischemic diabetic foot, lower-limb revascularization or amputation); and the budget impact for the French Insurance system to promote the cost-effective strategy. Analyses will be adjusted for a high-dimension propensity score taking into account known and unknown confounders. SCADIAB has been funded by the French Ministry of Health and the protocol has been approved by the French ethic authorities. Data management and analyses will start in the second half of 2021. DISCUSSION: SCADIAB is a large and contemporary RWE study that will assess the economic and clinical impacts of routine CAD screening in T2DM people at a very high cardiovascular risk. It will also evaluate the clinical practice regarding CAD screening and help to make future recommendations and optimize the use of health care resources. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04534530 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04534530 ).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohammedi et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Type 2 diabetes at very high cardiovascular risk (n=90,000). Routine CAD screening vs. No CAD screening was evaluated on Incremental cost per life year saved over 5 years. Routine CAD screening in patients with type 2 diabetes at very high cardiovascular risk is being evaluated for cost-effectiveness and clinical impact in this study protocol, with no results available yet.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: