Glucose challenge test screening for prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes.

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Emory University School of Medicine, 101 Woodruff Circle, WMRB Room 1027, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Diabetologia (Impact Factor: 6.88). 06/2009; 52(9):1798-807.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Diabetes prevention and care are limited by lack of screening. We hypothesised that screening could be done with a strategy similar to that used near-universally for gestational diabetes, i.e. a 50 g oral glucose challenge test (GCT) performed at any time of day, regardless of meal status, with one 1 h sample.
At a first visit, participants had random plasma and capillary glucose measured, followed by the GCT with plasma and capillary glucose (GCTplasma and GCTcap, respectively). At a second visit, participants had HbA(1c) measured and a diagnostic 75 g OGTT.
The 1,573 participants had mean age of 48 years, BMI 30.3 kg/m(2) and 58% were women and 58% were black. Diabetes (defined by WHO) was present in 4.6% and prediabetes (defined as impaired glucose tolerance [2 h glucose 7.8-11.1 (140-199 mg/dl) with fasting glucose <or=6.9 (125 mg/dl)] and/or impaired fasting glucose with plasma glucose 6.1-6.9 mmol/l [110-125 mg/dl]) in 18.7%. The GCTplasma provided areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic curves of 0.90, 0.82 and 0.79 for detection of diabetes, diabetes or prediabetes, and prediabetes, respectively, all of which were higher than GCTcap, random and capillary glucose, and HbA(1c) (p < 0.02 for all). The performance of GCTplasma was unaffected by time after meals or time of day, and was better in blacks than whites, but otherwise comparable in men and women, and in groups with differing prevalence of glucose intolerance. GCTplasma screening would cost approximately US$84 to identify one person with previously unrecognised diabetes or prediabetes.
GCT screening for prediabetes and previously unrecognised diabetes would be accurate, convenient and inexpensive. Widespread use of GCT screening could help improve disease management by permitting early initiation of therapy aimed at preventing or delaying the development of diabetes and its complications.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Screening for diabetes might be more widespread if adverse associations with cardiovascular disease (CVD), resource use, and costs were known to occur earlier than conventional clinical diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine whether adverse effects associated with diabetes begin prior to clinical diagnosis. Veterans with diabetes were matched 1:2 with controls by follow-up, age, race/ethnicity, gender, and VA facility. CVD was obtained from ICD-9 codes, and resource use and costs from VA datasets. VA facilities in SC, GA, and AL. Patients with and without diagnosed diabetes. Diagnosed CVD, resource use, and costs. In this study, the 2,062 diabetic patients and 4,124 controls were 63 years old on average, 99 % male, and 29 % black; BMI was 30.8 in diabetic patients vs. 27.8 in controls (p<0.001). CVD prevalence was higher and there were more outpatient visits in Year -4 before diagnosis through Year +4 after diagnosis among diabetic vs. control patients (all p<0.01); in Year -2, CVD prevalence was 31 % vs. 24 %, and outpatient visits were 22 vs. 19 per year, respectively. Total VA costs/year/veteran were higher in diabetic than control patients from Year -4 ($4,083 vs. $2,754) through Year +5 ($8,347 vs. $5,700) (p<0.003) for each, reflecting underlying increases in outpatient, inpatient, and pharmacy costs (p<0.05 for each). Regression analysis showed that diabetes contributed an average of $1,748/year to costs, independent of CVD (p<0.001). VA costs per veteran are higher-over $1,000/year before and $2,000/year after diagnosis of diabetes-due to underlying increases in outpatient, inpatient, and pharmacy costs, greater number of outpatient visits, and increased CVD. Moreover, adverse associations with veterans' health and the VA healthcare system occur early in the natural history of the disease, several years before diabetes is diagnosed. Since adverse associations begin before diabetes is recognized, greater consideration should be given to systematic screening in order to permit earlier detection and initiation of preventive management. Keeping frequency of CVD and marginal costs in line with those of patients before diabetes is currently diagnosed has the potential to save up to $2 billion a year.
    Journal of general internal medicine. 01/2015;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimTo determine whether using HbA1c for screening and management could be confounded by age differences, whether age effects can be explained by unrecognized diabetes and prediabetes, insulin resistance or postprandial hyperglycaemia, and whether the effects of aging have an impact on diagnostic accuracy.Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis in adults without known diabetes in the Screening for Impaired Glucose Tolerance (SIGT) study 2005–2008 (n=1573) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005–2006 (n=1184).ResultsBoth glucose intolerance and HbA1c levels increased with age. In univariate analyses including all subjects, HbA1c levels increased by 0.085% per AUTHOR: Please give increases in HbA1c in mmol/mol with percentages in brackets. 10 years of age in the SIGT study and by 0.094% per 10 years in the NHANES; in both datasets, the HbA1c increase was 0.08% per 10 years in subjects without diabetes, and 0.07% per 10 years in subjects with normal glucose tolerance, all P<0.001. In multivariate analyses of subjects with normal glucose tolerance, the relationship between age and HbA1c remained significant (P<0.001) after adjustment for covariates including race, BMI, waist circumference, sagittal abdominal diameter, triglyceride/HDL ratio, and fasting and 2-h plasma glucose and other glucose levels, as assessed by an oral glucose tolerance test. In both datasets, the HbA1c of an 80-year-old individual with normal glucose tolerance would be 0.35% greater than that of a 30-year-old with normal glucose tolerance, a difference that is clinically significant. Moreover, the specificity of HbA1c-based diagnostic criteria for prediabetes decreased substantially with increasing age (both P<0.0001).Conclusions In two large datasets, using different methods to measure HbA1c, the association of age with higher HbA1c levels: was consistent and similar; was both statistically and clinically significant; was unexplained by features of aging; and reduced diagnostic specificity. Age should be taken into consideration when using HbA1c for the diagnosis and management of diabetes and prediabetes.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Diabetic Medicine 04/2014; · 3.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim To describe and evaluate risk assessment tools which detect those with pre-diabetes defined as either impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose using an OGTT or as a raised HbA1c. Methods Tools were identified through a systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE for articles which developed a risk tool to detect those with pre-diabetes. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction form. Results Eighteen tools met the inclusion criteria. Eleven tools were derived using logistic regression, six using decision trees and one using support vector machine methodology. Age, body mass index, family history of diabetes and hypertension were the most frequently included variables. The size of the datasets used and the number of events per variable considered were acceptable in all the tools. Missing data were not discussed for eight (44%) of the tools, 10 (91%) of the logistic tools categorised continuous variables, external validation was carried out for only seven (39%) of the tools and only three tools reported calibration levels. Conclusions Several risk scores are available to identify those with pre-diabetes. Before these are used in practice, the level of calibration and validity of the tools in the population of interest should be assessed.
    Diabetes research and clinical practice 07/2014; · 2.74 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014