Claudia Thomas1, Elina Hyppönen, Chris Power. 1. Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, England. c.thomas@ich.ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Cambridge Risk Score (CRS) was developed to screen for type 2 diabetes mellitus risk. We assessed the ability of the CRS to predict glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels and determined whether the CRS was better than body mass index (BMI) at predicting HbA(1c) levels in midlife. METHODS: We included 7452 participants without known diabetes in a biomedical survey of the 1958 British Birth Cohort at 45 years of age. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to compare the ability of the CRS and BMI to identify individuals with elevated HbA(1c) levels using thresholds of 7.0% or more, 6.0% or more, and 5.5% or more. RESULTS: Of the total sample, 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7%-1.1%) had HbA(1c) levels of 7.0% or more; 3.8% (95% CI, 3.2%-4.5%), 6.0% or more; and 24.4% (95% CI, 23.1%-25.9%), 5.5% or more. The CRS detected individuals with elevated HbA(1c) levels with reasonable accuracy (area under the curve, 0.84 for HbA(1c) level >or=7.0%; 0.76 for HbA(1c) level >or=6.0%). Similar area under the curve values were obtained using BMI alone (0.84 for HbA(1c) level >or=7.0%; 0.79 for HbA(1c) level >or=6.0%). When tested using the lower HbA(1c) threshold of 5.5% or more, the CRS and BMI did not perform well (areas under the curve, 0.65 and 0.63 for CRS and BMI, respectively). Both measures indicated that approximately 20% of the cohort were at increased risk of diabetes. Owing to the low prevalence of diabetes at 45 years of age, only 2% to 3% of those considered at risk had elevated HbA(1c) levels. CONCLUSIONS: For a population in mid-adult life, the CRS identified individuals with elevated HbA(1c) levels reasonably well. However, the CRS had no advantage compared with BMI alone in identifying diabetes risk.
BACKGROUND: The Cambridge Risk Score (CRS) was developed to screen for type 2 diabetes mellitus risk. We assessed the ability of the CRS to predict glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels and determined whether the CRS was better than body mass index (BMI) at predicting HbA(1c) levels in midlife. METHODS: We included 7452 participants without known diabetes in a biomedical survey of the 1958 British Birth Cohort at 45 years of age. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to compare the ability of the CRS and BMI to identify individuals with elevated HbA(1c) levels using thresholds of 7.0% or more, 6.0% or more, and 5.5% or more. RESULTS: Of the total sample, 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7%-1.1%) had HbA(1c) levels of 7.0% or more; 3.8% (95% CI, 3.2%-4.5%), 6.0% or more; and 24.4% (95% CI, 23.1%-25.9%), 5.5% or more. The CRS detected individuals with elevated HbA(1c) levels with reasonable accuracy (area under the curve, 0.84 for HbA(1c) level >or=7.0%; 0.76 for HbA(1c) level >or=6.0%). Similar area under the curve values were obtained using BMI alone (0.84 for HbA(1c) level >or=7.0%; 0.79 for HbA(1c) level >or=6.0%). When tested using the lower HbA(1c) threshold of 5.5% or more, the CRS and BMI did not perform well (areas under the curve, 0.65 and 0.63 for CRS and BMI, respectively). Both measures indicated that approximately 20% of the cohort were at increased risk of diabetes. Owing to the low prevalence of diabetes at 45 years of age, only 2% to 3% of those considered at risk had elevated HbA(1c) levels. CONCLUSIONS: For a population in mid-adult life, the CRS identified individuals with elevated HbA(1c) levels reasonably well. However, the CRS had no advantage compared with BMI alone in identifying diabetes risk.
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Marco Cappucciati; Grazia Rutigliano; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Ilaria Bonoldi; Stefan Borgwardt; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Jean Addington; Diana Perkins; Scott W Woods; Thomas H McGlashan; Jimmy Lee; Joachim Klosterkötter; Alison R Yung; Philip McGuire Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Benjamin J Gray; Richard M Bracken; Daniel Turner; Kerry Morgan; Michael Thomas; Sally P Williams; Meurig Williams; Sam Rice; Jeffrey W Stephens Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 5.386