Article

Prognostic value of haemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose for incident diabetes and implications for screening.

Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
European Journal of Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 5.12). 09/2011; 26(10):779-87. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-011-9619-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this analysis is to compare screening strategies with haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or combined measures in the identification of individuals at high risk for diabetes. Applying American Diabetes Association thresholds for FPG and HbA(1c) screening, 6,803 subjects free of diabetes were classified as non-diabetic, pre-diabetic and possibly diabetic by FPG (<100, 100-125 and >125 mg/dl) and HbA(1c) (<5.7, 5.7-6.4 and >6.4%). Hazard ratios, sensitivity and specificity were estimated for individuals with pre-diabetes with respect to incident diabetes in the following 5 years. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were estimated for levels of FPG ≤ 125 mg/dl and HbA(1c) ≤ 6.4% in diabetes prediction. Although FPG and HbA(1c) screenings poorly agreed in classifying individuals as pre-diabetic, hazard ratios [95% confidence interval] for incident diabetes were similarly increased in univariate models in the two pre-diabetic groups: FPG 100-125 mg/dl, 4.72 [3.69; 6.05]; HbA(1c) 5.7-6.4%, 3.97 [3.05; 5.23]. HbA(1c) and FPG had comparable AUCs (FPG, 0.732; HbA(1c), 0.725) and consequently similar 5-year sensitivities and specificities for their pre-diabetes definitions (when the lower cut-off for HbA(1c)-defined pre-diabetes was increased to a level between 5.8 and 5.9%). Combining HbA(1c) and FPG increased the AUC to 0.778, and a further increase to 0.817 was seen with additional inclusion of conventional risk factors. FPG and HbA(1c) have comparable (yet insufficient) abilities in identifying individuals at high risk for diabetes. Effectiveness of a diabetes screening program could be improved by a risk score including FPG and HbA(1c).

0 Bookmarks
 · 
83 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With respect to clinical phenotype and pathophysiology, prediabetes is akin to diabetes. Prediabetes is prevalent in the global population, and those affected are at high risk of progression to overt diabetes, and also at risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Progression to diabetes can occur because of worsening insulin resistance, β-cell dysfunction, or both, but the timecourse can be non-linear and, therefore, unpredictable. Intervention-by lifestyle modification, glucose-lowering drugs, or a combination-can postpone deterioration of glucose control, but effects of intervention are variable and can be transient. Furthermore, to what extent interventions can reduce cardiovascular risk is uncertain. Lifestyle intervention mainly hinges on weight loss; as such, risk of failure in the long-term is high, and implementation at the community level is difficult. The ideal candidate for intervention is an individual with prediabetes-identified by targeted screening-with many well documented cardiovascular risk factors, and who is highly motivated to initiate and maintain multifactorial risk-control using a personalised mix of lifestyle-adaptation and pharmacological treatment.
    The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology. 01/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) has been suggested to replace glucose tests in identifying diabetes and pre-diabetes. We assessed agreement between fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1C rapid tests in classifying abnormal glucose regulation (AGR), and their utility for preventive screening in rural Africa. A population-based survey of 795 people aged 35-60 years was conducted in a mainly rural district in Uganda. FPG was measured using On-Call(®) Plus glucometers, and classified using World Health Organization (WHO) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. HbA1C was measured using A1cNow(®) kits and classified using ADA criteria. Body mass index and blood pressure were measured. Percentage agreement between the two tests was computed. Using HbA1C, 11.3% of participants had diabetes compared with 4.8% for FPG. Prevalence of HbA1C-defined pre-diabetes (26.4%) was 1.2 times and 2.5 times higher than FPG-defined pre-diabetes using ADA (21.8%) and WHO (10.1%) criteria, respectively. With FPG as the reference, agreement between FPG and HbA1C in classifying diabetes status was moderate (Kappa=22.9; Area Under the Curve (AUC)=75%), while that for AGR was low (Kappa=11.0; AUC=59%). However, agreement was high (over 90%) among negative tests and among participants with risk factors for type 2 diabetes (obesity, overweight or hypertension). HbA1C had more procedural challenges than FPG. Although low in the general sample, agreement between HbA1C and FPG is excellent among persons who test negative with either test. A single test can therefore identify the majority at lower risk for type 2 diabetes. Nurses if trained can conduct these tests.
    Diabetes research and clinical practice 01/2014; · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims/hypothesis This study aimed to assess the cardiovascular risk of individuals with fasting plasma glucose (FPG)- and/or HbA1c-defined prediabetes (5.6–6.9 mmol/l and 39–47 mmol/mol [5.7–6.4%], respectively) or manifest diabetes mellitus and to evaluate whether FPG or HbA1c can improve risk prediction beyond that estimated by the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) chart in individuals without diabetes mellitus. Methods Cox regression was employed to estimate HRs for primary incident cardiovascular events (CVEs) in a cohort of 8,365 individuals aged 50–74 years. Furthermore, HbA1c and FPG were added individually to the variables of the SCORE and measures of model discrimination and reclassification were assessed. Results During 8 years of follow-up, 702 individuals had a primary CVE. After adjusting for conventional cardiovascular risk factors, HRs were attenuated close to one for the prediabetes groups (especially for women), whereas a 1.7- and a 1.9-fold increased risk persisted for men and women with diabetes, respectively. Extension of the SCORE variables by either FPG or HbA1c did not improve its predictive abilities in individuals without diabetes. There was a non-significant net reclassification improvement for men when HbA1c was added (2.2%, p = 0.16). Conclusions/interpretation The increased cardiovascular risk of individuals with FPG- or HbA1c-defined prediabetes can mainly be explained by other cardiovascular risk factors. Adding FPG or HbA1c did not significantly improve CVE risk prediction by the SCORE variables in individuals without diabetes mellitus.
    Diabetologia 01/2012; 56(1). · 6.49 Impact Factor