PURPOSE: Nearly one third of diabetes cases in the United States is undiagnosed, with mounting evidence that complications accrue even before clinical diagnosis. We wanted to determine whether persons with undiagnosed diabetes have signs of nephropathy and peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: We examined the prevalence of positive screening tests for nephropathy and peripheral neuropathy in adults aged > or = 40 years with undiagnosed diabetes using secondary analysis of survey and examination data from the population-based United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2002. We defined a positive screening test for nephropathy as a spot urine albumin-creatinine ratio > 30.0 mg/g, representing at least microalbuminuria. We defined > or = 1 insensate area on Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing as a positive finding for neuropathy. Undiagnosed diabetes was defined as a combination of no history of diagnosed diabetes and a measured fasting glucose > or = 126 mg/dL. We used SUDAAN for chi2 and regression analyses. RESULTS: The prevalence of a positive test when screening for nephropathy among those with undiagnosed diabetes was 26.5% compared with 7.1% in those with no diabetes (chi2, P <.01). After adjusting for age and diagnosed or undiagnosed hypertension, the association of undiagnosed diabetes with nephropathy persisted (odds ratio = 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-4.01). For peripheral neuropathy, 21.5% with undiagnosed diabetes had positive screening tests compared with 10.1% with no diabetes (chi2, P <.01); however, this effect was not significant after adjustment for age. There was no significant difference in positive screening tests for nephropathy or neuropathy when comparing those with undiagnosed and diagnosed diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of adults with undiagnosed diabetes have signs of nephropathy and peripheral neuropathy. These findings may influence policies about early screening for diabetes.
PURPOSE: Nearly one third of diabetes cases in the United States is undiagnosed, with mounting evidence that complications accrue even before clinical diagnosis. We wanted to determine whether persons with undiagnosed diabetes have signs of nephropathy and peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: We examined the prevalence of positive screening tests for nephropathy and peripheral neuropathy in adults aged > or = 40 years with undiagnosed diabetes using secondary analysis of survey and examination data from the population-based United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2002. We defined a positive screening test for nephropathy as a spot urine albumin-creatinine ratio > 30.0 mg/g, representing at least microalbuminuria. We defined > or = 1 insensate area on Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing as a positive finding for neuropathy. Undiagnosed diabetes was defined as a combination of no history of diagnosed diabetes and a measured fasting glucose > or = 126 mg/dL. We used SUDAAN for chi2 and regression analyses. RESULTS: The prevalence of a positive test when screening for nephropathy among those with undiagnosed diabetes was 26.5% compared with 7.1% in those with no diabetes (chi2, P <.01). After adjusting for age and diagnosed or undiagnosed hypertension, the association of undiagnosed diabetes with nephropathy persisted (odds ratio = 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-4.01). For peripheral neuropathy, 21.5% with undiagnosed diabetes had positive screening tests compared with 10.1% with no diabetes (chi2, P <.01); however, this effect was not significant after adjustment for age. There was no significant difference in positive screening tests for nephropathy or neuropathy when comparing those with undiagnosed and diagnosed diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of adults with undiagnosed diabetes have signs of nephropathy and peripheral neuropathy. These findings may influence policies about early screening for diabetes.
Authors: Jennifer A Mayfield; Gayle E Reiber; Lee J Sanders; Dennis Janisse; Leonard M Pogach Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Garabed Eknoyan; Thomas Hostetter; George L Bakris; Lee Hebert; Andrew S Levey; Hans-Henrik Parving; Michael W Steffes; Robert Toto Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Gunnar Taubert; Bernhard R Winkelmann; Thomas Schleiffer; Winfried März; Ralph Winkler; Rahime Gök; Bärbel Klein; Steffen Schneider; Bernhard O Boehm Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Russell Harris; Katrina Donahue; Saif S Rathore; Paul Frame; Steven H Woolf; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Jacqueline M Dekker; Giel Nijpels; Marcel C Adriaanse; Piet J Kostense; Dirk Ruwaard; Coen D A Stehouwer; Lex M Bouter; Robert J Heine Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Laura C Plantinga; Deidra C Crews; Josef Coresh; Edgar R Miller; Rajiv Saran; Jerry Yee; Elizabeth Hedgeman; Meda Pavkov; Mark S Eberhardt; Desmond E Williams; Neil R Powe Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Shiela M Strauss; Marlena Vega; Helene D Clayton-Jeter; Sherry Deren; Mary Rosedale; David M Rindskopf Journal: Hisp Health Care Int Date: 2014
Authors: Deborah J Wexler; David M Nathan; Richard W Grant; Susan Regan; Allison L Van Leuvan; Enrico Cagliero Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2008-08-12 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Robert A Silverman; Urvi Thakker; Tovah Ellman; Ivan Wong; Kelly Smith; Kazuhiko Ito; Kirsten Graff Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 19.112