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. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-009-1407-7
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.

Download full-text


Available from: Viola Vaccarino, Jul 06, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims The clinical implications of prediabetes for development of type 2 diabetes may differ for Asian ethnicity. We investigated various indices derived from a 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in people with prediabetes to predict their future risk of diabetes. Methods We recruited 406 consecutive subjects with prediabetes from 2005 to 2006 and followed them up every 3–6 months for up to 9 years. Prediabetes was defined as isolated impaired fasting glucose (IFG), isolated impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), combined glucose intolerance (CGI) or isolated elevated HbA1c (5.7–6.4%, 39–46 mmol/mol) without IFG or IGT. The rate of diabetes conversion was compared between prediabetes categories. The association of glycemic indices with development of diabetes was also investigated. Results Eighty-one patients were diagnosed with diabetes during the 9-year follow-up (median 46.0 months). The rate of diabetes conversion was higher in subjects with CGI (31.9%), or isolated IGT (18.5%) than in those with isolated IFG (15.2%) or isolated elevated HbA1c (10.9%). Surrogate markers reflecting β-cell dysfunction were more closely associated with diabetes conversion than insulin resistance indices. Subjects with a 30-min postload glucose ≥165 mg/dL and a 30-min C-peptide <5 ng/mL had 8.83 times greater risk (95% confidence interval 2.98–26.16) of developing diabetes than other prediabetic subjects. Conclusions In Asians, at least Koreans, β-cell dysfunction seems to be the major determinant for diabetes conversion. A combination of high glucose and low C-peptide levels at 30 min after OGTT may be a good predictor for diabetes conversion in this population
    Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 09/2014; 106(2). DOI:10.1016/j.diabres.2014.08.014 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Gestational Diabetes, 11/2011; , ISBN: 978-953-307-581-5
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the proportion of the American population who would merit metformin treatment, according to recent American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus panel recommendations to prevent or delay the development of diabetes. Risk factors were evaluated in 1,581 Screening for Impaired Glucose Tolerance (SIGT), 2,014 Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), and 1,111 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006 (NHANES 2005-2006) subjects, who were non-Hispanic white and black, without known diabetes. Criteria for consideration of metformin included the presence of both impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), with > or =1 additional diabetes risk factor: age <60 years, BMI > or =35 kg/m(2), family history of diabetes, elevated triglycerides, reduced HDL cholesterol, hypertension, or A1C >6.0%. Isolated IFG, isolated IGT, and IFG and IGT were found in 18.0, 7.2, and 8.2% of SIGT; 22.3, 6.4, and 9.4% of NHANES III; and 21.8, 5.0, and 9.0% of NHANES 2005-2006 subjects, respectively. In SIGT, NHANES III, and NHANES 2005-2006, criteria for metformin consideration were met in 99, 96, and 96% of those with IFG and IGT; 31, 29, and 28% of all those with IFG; and 53, 57, and 62% of all those with IGT (8.1, 9.1, and 8.7% of all subjects), respectively. More than 96% of individuals with both IFG and IGT are likely to meet ADA consensus criteria for consideration of metformin. Because >28% of all those with IFG met the criteria, providers should perform oral glucose tolerance tests to find concomitant IGT in all patients with IFG. To the extent that our findings are representative of the U.S. population, approximately 1 in 12 adults has a combination of pre-diabetes and risk factors that may justify consideration of metformin treatment for diabetes prevention.
    Diabetes care 10/2009; 33(1):49-54. DOI:10.2337/dc09-0341 · 8.57 Impact Factor