OBJECTIVE: Efficient detection of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is needed to implement type 2 diabetes prevention interventions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We assessed the capacity of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) to identify IGT in a cross-sectional analysis of 3,326 Caucasian Framingham Offspring Study (FOS), 1,168 Caucasian and 1,812 Mexican-American San Antonio Heart Study (SAHS), 1,983 Mexico City Diabetes Study (MCDS), and 452 Caucasian, 407 Mexican-American, and 290 African-American Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS) men and women aged 30-79 years who had a clinical examination and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) during 1987-1996. Those with diabetes treatment or fasting plasma glucose > or =7.0 mmol/l were excluded (MetS was defined by Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel criteria and IGT as 2-h postchallenge glucose [2hPG] > or =7.8 mmol/l). We calculated positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), population attributable risk percentages (PAR%), age- and sex-adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROCs) associated with MetS traits. RESULTS: Among FOS, SAHS, and MCDS subjects, 24-43% had MetS and 15-23% had IGT (including 2-5% with 2hPG > or =11.1 mmol/l). Among those with MetS, OR for IGT were 3-4, PPV were 0.24-0.41, NPV were 0.84-0.91, and PAR% were 30-40%. Among subjects with MetS defined by impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and any two other traits, OR for IGT were 9-24, PPV were 0.62-0.89, NPV were 0.78-0.87, and PAR% were 3-12%. Among IRAS subjects, 24-34% had MetS and 37-41% had IGT. Among those with MetS, ORs for IGT were 3-6, PPVs were 0.57-0.73, and NPVs were 0.67-0.72. In logistic regression models, IFG, large waist, and high triglycerides were independently associated with IGT (AROC 0.71-0.83) in all study populations. CONCLUSIONS: The MetS, especially defined by IFG, large waist, and high triglycerides, efficiently identifies subjects likely to have IGT on OGTT and thus be eligible for diabetes prevention interventions.
OBJECTIVE: Efficient detection of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is needed to implement type 2 diabetes prevention interventions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We assessed the capacity of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) to identify IGT in a cross-sectional analysis of 3,326 Caucasian Framingham Offspring Study (FOS), 1,168 Caucasian and 1,812 Mexican-American San Antonio Heart Study (SAHS), 1,983 Mexico City Diabetes Study (MCDS), and 452 Caucasian, 407 Mexican-American, and 290 African-American Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS) men and women aged 30-79 years who had a clinical examination and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) during 1987-1996. Those with diabetes treatment or fasting plasma glucose > or =7.0 mmol/l were excluded (MetS was defined by Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel criteria and IGT as 2-h postchallenge glucose [2hPG] > or =7.8 mmol/l). We calculated positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), population attributable risk percentages (PAR%), age- and sex-adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROCs) associated with MetS traits. RESULTS: Among FOS, SAHS, and MCDS subjects, 24-43% had MetS and 15-23% had IGT (including 2-5% with 2hPG > or =11.1 mmol/l). Among those with MetS, OR for IGT were 3-4, PPV were 0.24-0.41, NPV were 0.84-0.91, and PAR% were 30-40%. Among subjects with MetS defined by impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and any two other traits, OR for IGT were 9-24, PPV were 0.62-0.89, NPV were 0.78-0.87, and PAR% were 3-12%. Among IRAS subjects, 24-34% had MetS and 37-41% had IGT. Among those with MetS, ORs for IGT were 3-6, PPVs were 0.57-0.73, and NPVs were 0.67-0.72. In logistic regression models, IFG, large waist, and high triglycerides were independently associated with IGT (AROC 0.71-0.83) in all study populations. CONCLUSIONS: The MetS, especially defined by IFG, large waist, and high triglycerides, efficiently identifies subjects likely to have IGT on OGTT and thus be eligible for diabetes prevention interventions.
Authors: Richard W Grant; James B Meigs; Jose C Florez; Elyse R Park; Robert C Green; Jessica L Waxler; Linda M Delahanty; Kelsey E O'Brien Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Jeff Cobb; Andrea Eckhart; Regis Perichon; Jacob Wulff; Matthew Mitchell; Klaus-Peter Adam; Robert Wolfert; Eric Button; Kay Lawton; Robert Elverson; Bernadette Carr; Margaret Sinnott; Ele Ferrannini Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-09-26
Authors: Mirjam V Faulenbach; Lorena A Wright; Carlos Lorenzo; Kristina M Utzschneider; Julia H Goedecke; Wilfred Y Fujimoto; Edward J Boyko; Marguerite J McNeely; Donna L Leonetti; Steven M Haffner; Steven E Kahn Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Sophia S K Yu; Natalie L M Ramsey; Darleen C Castillo; Madia Ricks; Anne E Sumner Journal: Metab Syndr Relat Disord Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 1.894
Authors: Eman A El Bassuoni; David C Ziemer; Paul Kolm; Mary K Rhee; Viola Vaccarino; Circe W Tsui; Jack M Kaufman; G Eileen Osinski; David D Koch; K M Venkat Narayan; William S Weintraub; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Prim Care Diabetes Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 2.459