OBJECTIVE: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recently recommended HbA1c for diagnosing diabetes as an alternative to glucose-based criteria. We compared the new HbA1c-based criteria for diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes with the glucose-based criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the population-based German KORA surveys (S4/F4) 1,764 non-diabetic participants aged 31-60 years and 896 participants aged 61-75 years underwent measurements of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-h glucose. RESULTS: Only 20% of all subjects diagnosed with diabetes by glucose or HbA1c criteria had diabetes by both criteria; for prediabetes, the corresponding figure was 23%. Using HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, the prevalence of diabetes was strongly reduced compared to the glucose criteria (0.7% instead of 2.3% in the middle-aged, 2.9% instead of 7.9% in the older subjects). Only 32.0% (middle-aged) and 43.2% (older group) of isolated impaired glucose tolerance (i-IGT) cases were detected by the HbA1c criterion (5.7% ≤ HbA1c < 6.5%). CONCLUSION: By glucose and the new HbA1c diabetes criteria, different subjects are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in middle-aged as well as older subjects. The new HbA1c criterion lacks sensitivity for impaired glucose tolerance.
OBJECTIVE: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recently recommended HbA1c for diagnosing diabetes as an alternative to glucose-based criteria. We compared the new HbA1c-based criteria for diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes with the glucose-based criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the population-based German KORA surveys (S4/F4) 1,764 non-diabeticparticipants aged 31-60 years and 896 participants aged 61-75 years underwent measurements of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-h glucose. RESULTS: Only 20% of all subjects diagnosed with diabetes by glucose or HbA1c criteria had diabetes by both criteria; for prediabetes, the corresponding figure was 23%. Using HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, the prevalence of diabetes was strongly reduced compared to the glucose criteria (0.7% instead of 2.3% in the middle-aged, 2.9% instead of 7.9% in the older subjects). Only 32.0% (middle-aged) and 43.2% (older group) of isolated impaired glucose tolerance (i-IGT) cases were detected by the HbA1c criterion (5.7% ≤ HbA1c < 6.5%). CONCLUSION: By glucose and the new HbA1c diabetes criteria, different subjects are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in middle-aged as well as older subjects. The new HbA1c criterion lacks sensitivity for impaired glucose tolerance.
Authors: M S Hutchinson; R M Joakimsen; I Njølstad; H Schirmer; Y Figenschau; R Jorde Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: A S Meijnikman; C E M De Block; E Dirinck; A Verrijken; I Mertens; B Corthouts; L F Van Gaal Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Christine von Toerne; Cornelia Huth; Tonia de Las Heras Gala; Florian Kronenberg; Christian Herder; Wolfgang Koenig; Christa Meisinger; Wolfgang Rathmann; Melanie Waldenberger; Michael Roden; Annette Peters; Barbara Thorand; Stefanie M Hauck Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-06-25 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: C Meisinger; D Stöckl; I M Rückert; A Döring; B Thorand; M Heier; C Huth; P Belcredi; B Kowall; W Rathmann Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2012-11-25 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Christa Meisinger; Ina M Rückert; Wolfgang Rathmann; Angela Döring; Barbara Thorand; Cornelia Huth; Bernd Kowall; Wolfgang Koenig Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 19.112