ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2026
Economic evaluation of NT-proBNP testing plus standard clinical assessment versus standard clinical assessment alone for the prevention of heart failure in older adults with type 2 diabetes.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionN-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) testing for early heart failure (HF) detection in asymptomatic older adults with diabetes in the USA remains limited despite guideline recommendations. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of incorporating NT-proBNP testing into routine clinical assessments for adults aged ≥65 years from a Medicare perspective. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA five-state Markov model with an embedded decision tree compared NT-proBNP testing plus standard clinical assessments with standard assessments alone in adults aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes, with or without other HF risk factors. Model inputs (ie, baseline event rates, treatment effects, utilities, and costs) were derived from published literature and publicly available Medicare data. Outcomes, including direct medical costs (ie, diagnostic testing, cardioprotective treatments, HF-related hospitalization, and chronic/advanced HF treatment), life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.
resultsCompared with standard clinical assessment alone, NT-proBNP testing prolonged survival (6.27 vs 4.99 LYs) and improved quality of life (3.45 vs 2.84 QALYs). Although lifetime HF hospitalizations were similar (0.43 vs 0.43), LY-adjusted hospitalizations were lower with NT-proBNP testing (0.29 vs 0.43). Lifetime costs were higher with NT-proBNP testing (US$117 010 vs US$92 283), reflecting longer survival and greater use of appropriate cardioprotective treatments. NT-proBNP was cost-effective, with an incremental cost per QALY gained of US$40 883. Results were robust, with the model most sensitive to changes in diabetes management costs, mortality among high-risk individuals, and cardioprotective drug effectiveness.
conclusionsAnnual NT-proBNP testing in older adults with type 2 diabetes is cost-effective for early HF detection in a Medicare setting, supporting broader adoption of guideline-recommended testing in this high-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.