BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening using hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) may improve detection of undiagnosed diabetes but remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive validity of HbA1c as a screening test for undiagnosed diabetes in a risk-stratified sample of the US population. DESIGN: Weighted cross-sectional analysis of diabetes risk factors, HbA1c, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004. SUBJECTS: Six thousand seven hundred and twenty-three NHANES participants from morning examination session, aged > or = 18 years and without prior physician-diagnosed diabetes. MEASUREMENTS: HbA1c and undiagnosed diabetes defined by FPG > or = 7.0 mmol/l (126 mg/dl). RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes in the US population was 2.8% (5.5 million people). HbA1c had strong correlation with undiagnosed diabetes, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.93. Independent predictors of undiagnosed diabetes were older age, male sex, black race, hypertension, elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We derived a risk score for undiagnosed diabetes and stratified participants into low (0.44% prevalence), moderate (4.1% prevalence), and high (11.1% prevalence) risk subgroups. In moderate and high risk groups, a threshold HbA1c value > or = 6.1% identified patients requiring confirmatory FPG; HbA1c < or = 5.4% identified patients for whom diabetes could be reliably excluded. Intermediate HbA1c (5.5-6.0%) may exclude diabetes in moderate, but not high risk groups). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification improves the predictive validity of HbA1c in screening for undiagnosed diabetes in the US population. Although opportunistic screening with HbA1c would improve detection of undiagnosed diabetes, cost-effectiveness studies are needed before implementation of specific screening strategies using HbA1c.
BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening using hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) may improve detection of undiagnosed diabetes but remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive validity of HbA1c as a screening test for undiagnosed diabetes in a risk-stratified sample of the US population. DESIGN: Weighted cross-sectional analysis of diabetes risk factors, HbA1c, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004. SUBJECTS: Six thousand seven hundred and twenty-three NHANES participants from morning examination session, aged > or = 18 years and without prior physician-diagnosed diabetes. MEASUREMENTS: HbA1c and undiagnosed diabetes defined by FPG > or = 7.0 mmol/l (126 mg/dl). RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes in the US population was 2.8% (5.5 million people). HbA1c had strong correlation with undiagnosed diabetes, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.93. Independent predictors of undiagnosed diabetes were older age, male sex, black race, hypertension, elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We derived a risk score for undiagnosed diabetes and stratified participants into low (0.44% prevalence), moderate (4.1% prevalence), and high (11.1% prevalence) risk subgroups. In moderate and high risk groups, a threshold HbA1c value > or = 6.1% identified patients requiring confirmatory FPG; HbA1c < or = 5.4% identified patients for whom diabetes could be reliably excluded. Intermediate HbA1c (5.5-6.0%) may exclude diabetes in moderate, but not high risk groups). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification improves the predictive validity of HbA1c in screening for undiagnosed diabetes in the US population. Although opportunistic screening with HbA1c would improve detection of undiagnosed diabetes, cost-effectiveness studies are needed before implementation of specific screening strategies using HbA1c.
Authors: Catherine C Cowie; Keith F Rust; Danita D Byrd-Holt; Mark S Eberhardt; Katherine M Flegal; Michael M Engelgau; Sharon H Saydah; Desmond E Williams; Linda S Geiss; Edward W Gregg Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Shiela M Strauss; Mary Rosedale; Michael A Pesce; Caroline Juterbock; Navjot Kaur; Joe DePaola; Deborah Goetz; Mark S Wolff; Dolores Malaspina; Ann Danoff Journal: Point Care Date: 2014-12
Authors: James F Meschia; Cheryl Bushnell; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Lynne T Braun; Dawn M Bravata; Seemant Chaturvedi; Mark A Creager; Robert H Eckel; Mitchell S V Elkind; Myriam Fornage; Larry B Goldstein; Steven M Greenberg; Susanna E Horvath; Costantino Iadecola; Edward C Jauch; Wesley S Moore; John A Wilson Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Carlos Lorenzo; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Anthony J G Hanley; Marian J Rewers; Andrew J Karter; Steven M Haffner Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 19.112