BACKGROUND: With positive results from diabetes prevention studies, there is interest in convenient ways to incorporate screening for glucose intolerance into routine care and to limit the need for fasting diagnostic tests. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine whether random plasma glucose (RPG) could be used to screen for glucose intolerance. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: The participants of this study include a voluntary sample of 990 adults not known to have diabetes. MEASUREMENTS: RPG was measured, and each subject had a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test several weeks later. Glucose intolerance targets included diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and impaired fasting glucose(110) (IFG(110); fasting glucose, 110-125 mg/dl, and 2 h glucose < 140 mg/dl). Screening performance was measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AROC). RESULTS: Mean age was 48 years, and body mass index (BMI) was 30.4 kg/m(2); 66% were women, and 52% were black; 5.1% had previously unrecognized diabetes, and 24.0% had any "high-risk" glucose intolerance (diabetes or IGT or IFG(110)). The AROC was 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.86) for RPG to identify diabetes and 0.72 (0.68-0.75) to identify any glucose intolerance, both highly significant (p < 0.001). Screening performance was generally consistent at different times of the day, regardless of meal status, and across a range of risk factors such as age, BMI, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: RPG values should be considered by health care providers to be an opportunistic initial screening test and used to prompt further evaluation of patients at risk of glucose intolerance. Such "serendipitous screening" could help to identify unrecognized diabetes and prediabetes.
BACKGROUND: With positive results from diabetes prevention studies, there is interest in convenient ways to incorporate screening for glucose intolerance into routine care and to limit the need for fasting diagnostic tests. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine whether random plasma glucose (RPG) could be used to screen for glucose intolerance. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: The participants of this study include a voluntary sample of 990 adults not known to have diabetes. MEASUREMENTS: RPG was measured, and each subject had a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test several weeks later. Glucose intolerance targets included diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and impaired fasting glucose(110) (IFG(110); fasting glucose, 110-125 mg/dl, and 2 h glucose < 140 mg/dl). Screening performance was measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AROC). RESULTS: Mean age was 48 years, and body mass index (BMI) was 30.4 kg/m(2); 66% were women, and 52% were black; 5.1% had previously unrecognized diabetes, and 24.0% had any "high-risk" glucose intolerance (diabetes or IGT or IFG(110)). The AROC was 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.86) for RPG to identify diabetes and 0.72 (0.68-0.75) to identify any glucose intolerance, both highly significant (p < 0.001). Screening performance was generally consistent at different times of the day, regardless of meal status, and across a range of risk factors such as age, BMI, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: RPG values should be considered by health care providers to be an opportunistic initial screening test and used to prompt further evaluation of patients at risk of glucose intolerance. Such "serendipitous screening" could help to identify unrecognized diabetes and prediabetes.
Authors: L S Phillips; W T Branch; C B Cook; J P Doyle; I M El-Kebbi; D L Gallina; C D Miller; D C Ziemer; C S Barnes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-11-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: K M Venkat Narayan; James P Boyle; Linda S Geiss; Jinan B Saaddine; Theodore J Thompson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: D B Rolka; K M Narayan; T J Thompson; D Goldman; J Lindenmayer; K Alich; D Bacall; E M Benjamin; B Lamb; D O Stuart; M M Engelgau Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: William C Knowler; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Sarah E Fowler; Richard F Hamman; John M Lachin; Elizabeth A Walker; David M Nathan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Frank B Hu; Meir J Stampfer; Steven M Haffner; Caren G Solomon; Walter C Willett; JoAnn E Manson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Meng-Hsiung Hsieh; Joshua H Choe; Jashkaran Gadhvi; Yoon Jung Kim; Marcus A Arguez; Madison Palmer; Haleigh Gerold; Chance Nowak; Hung Do; Simbarashe Mazambani; Jordan K Knighton; Matthew Cha; Justin Goodwin; Min Kyu Kang; Ji Yun Jeong; Shin Yup Lee; Brandon Faubert; Zhenyu Xuan; E Dale Abel; Claudio Scafoglio; David B Shackelford; John D Minna; Pankaj K Singh; Vladimir Shulaev; Leonidas Bleris; Kenneth Hoyt; James Kim; Masahiro Inoue; Ralph J DeBerardinis; Tae Hoon Kim; Jung-Whan Kim Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Quynh C Nguyen; Eric A Whitsel; Joyce W Tabor; Carmen C Cuthbertson; Mark H Wener; Alan J Potter; Carolyn T Halpern; Ley A Killeya-Jones; Jon M Hussey; Chirayath Suchindran; Kathleen Mullan Harris Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Darin E Olson; Mary K Rhee; Kirsten Herrick; David C Ziemer; Jennifer G Twombly; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-07-16 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Lynn L Moore; Susan Chadid; Martha R Singer; Bernard E Kreger; Gerald V Denis Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Joyce M Lee; Achamyeleh Gebremariam; En-Ling Wu; Jennifer LaRose; James G Gurney Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jennifer G Twombly; Qi Long; Ming Zhu; Peter W F Wilson; K M Venkat Narayan; Lisa-Ann Fraser; Brian C Webber; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 19.112