OBJECTIVE: This study compared the performance of a novel noninvasive technology to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and A1C tests for detecting undiagnosed diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The design was a head-to-head evaluation in a naïve population. Consented subjects received FPG and A1C tests and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Subjects were also measured by a noninvasive device that detects the fluorescence of skin advanced glycation end products. A total of 351 subjects participated. RESULTS: Subjects with 2-h OGTT values > or = 140 mg/dl defined the positive screening class. A total of 84 subjects (23.9% prevalence) screened positive. The performances of the noninvasive device, FPG, and A1C were evaluated for sensitivity and specificity against this classification. At the impaired fasting glucose threshold (FPG = 100 mg/dl), the FPG testing sensitivity was 58% and the specificity was 77.4%. At that same specificity, the sensitivity for A1C testing was 63.8%, while the noninvasive testing sensitivity was 74.7%. The sensitivity advantage of the noninvasive device over both blood tests for detecting diabetes and precursors was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The noninvasive technology showed clinical performance advantages over both FPG and A1C testing. The sensitivity differential indicated that the noninvasive device is capable of identifying 28.8% more individuals in the OGTT-defined positive screening class than FPG testing and 17.1% more than A1C testing. The combination of higher sensitivity and greater convenience--rapid results with no fasting or blood draws--makes the device well suited for opportunistic screening.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the performance of a novel noninvasive technology to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and A1C tests for detecting undiagnosed diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The design was a head-to-head evaluation in a naïve population. Consented subjects received FPG and A1C tests and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Subjects were also measured by a noninvasive device that detects the fluorescence of skin advanced glycation end products. A total of 351 subjects participated. RESULTS: Subjects with 2-h OGTT values > or = 140 mg/dl defined the positive screening class. A total of 84 subjects (23.9% prevalence) screened positive. The performances of the noninvasive device, FPG, and A1C were evaluated for sensitivity and specificity against this classification. At the impaired fasting glucose threshold (FPG = 100 mg/dl), the FPG testing sensitivity was 58% and the specificity was 77.4%. At that same specificity, the sensitivity for A1C testing was 63.8%, while the noninvasive testing sensitivity was 74.7%. The sensitivity advantage of the noninvasive device over both blood tests for detecting diabetes and precursors was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The noninvasive technology showed clinical performance advantages over both FPG and A1C testing. The sensitivity differential indicated that the noninvasive device is capable of identifying 28.8% more individuals in the OGTT-defined positive screening class than FPG testing and 17.1% more than A1C testing. The combination of higher sensitivity and greater convenience--rapid results with no fasting or blood draws--makes the device well suited for opportunistic screening.
Authors: Thomas Baum; Samuel P Yap; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Lorenzo Nardo; Daniel Kuo; Andrew J Burghardt; Umesh B Masharani; Ann V Schwartz; Xiaojuan Li; Thomas M Link Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Matthew G Field; Victor M Elner; Donald G Puro; Jason M Feuerman; David C Musch; Rodica Pop-Busui; Richard Hackel; John R Heckenlively; Howard R Petty Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2008-07