T Lauritzen1, A Sandbaek, M V Skriver, K Borch-Johnsen. 1. Department of General Practice, School of Publich Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, DK 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. tl@alm.au.dk
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The measurement of HbA(1c) is suggested as a diagnostic test for diabetes. Screening for diabetes also identifies individuals with elevated cardiovascular risk but who are free of diabetes. This study aims to assess whether screening by HbA(1c) or glucose measures alone, or in combination with a cardiovascular risk assessment, identifies people who may benefit from preventive interventions, i.e. people with screen detected diabetes and people belonging to groups with excess mortality, during a median follow-up of 7 years. METHODS: A population-based, stepwise high-risk screening programme was performed in 193 family practices from 2001 to 2006. Individuals aged between 40 and 69 years (N = 163,185) were sent a diabetes risk questionnaire. Of these, 20,916 people at risk of diabetes were stratified by glucose measures (normal glucose tolerance [NGT], impaired fasting glucose [IFG], impaired glucose tolerance [IGT] and diabetes), HbA(1c) (<6%; 6.0-6.4%; or ≥ 6.5%) and cardiovascular risk (heart SCORE <5 or ≥ 5). People were followed for a median of 7 years or until death. Excess mortality was calculated using the Cox hazard ratio (HR). RESULTS: SCORE ≥ 5 identified 91.7% (95% CI 91.1-92.3%) of those who might benefit from preventive interventions. SCORE ≥ 5 in combination with HbA(1c) ≥ 6.0% identified 96.7% (95% CI 96.3-97.0%), compared with 97.6% (95%CI 97.2-97.9%) in combination with glucose measures. Glucose measures or HbA(1c) alone identified 26.1% (95% CI 25.2-27.0%) and 19.8% (95% CI 19.0-20.6%), respectively. CONCLUSION/ INTERPRETATION: In a population-based high risk screening programme in primary care, HbA(1c) ≥ 6.0% combined with an elevated cardiovascular risk assessment (SCORE ≥ 5) can feasibly be used to identify those who may benefit from preventive lifestyle intervention and/or polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00237549. FUNDING: The study received unrestricted grants from Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Scandinavia, Astra Denmark, Pfizer Denmark, GlaxoSmithKline Pharma Denmark, Servier Denmark and HemoCue Denmark.
RCT Entities:
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The measurement of HbA(1c) is suggested as a diagnostic test for diabetes. Screening for diabetes also identifies individuals with elevated cardiovascular risk but who are free of diabetes. This study aims to assess whether screening by HbA(1c) or glucose measures alone, or in combination with a cardiovascular risk assessment, identifies people who may benefit from preventive interventions, i.e. people with screen detected diabetes and people belonging to groups with excess mortality, during a median follow-up of 7 years. METHODS: A population-based, stepwise high-risk screening programme was performed in 193 family practices from 2001 to 2006. Individuals aged between 40 and 69 years (N = 163,185) were sent a diabetes risk questionnaire. Of these, 20,916 people at risk of diabetes were stratified by glucose measures (normal glucose tolerance [NGT], impaired fasting glucose [IFG], impaired glucose tolerance [IGT] and diabetes), HbA(1c) (<6%; 6.0-6.4%; or ≥ 6.5%) and cardiovascular risk (heart SCORE <5 or ≥ 5). People were followed for a median of 7 years or until death. Excess mortality was calculated using the Cox hazard ratio (HR). RESULTS: SCORE ≥ 5 identified 91.7% (95% CI 91.1-92.3%) of those who might benefit from preventive interventions. SCORE ≥ 5 in combination with HbA(1c) ≥ 6.0% identified 96.7% (95% CI 96.3-97.0%), compared with 97.6% (95%CI 97.2-97.9%) in combination with glucose measures. Glucose measures or HbA(1c) alone identified 26.1% (95% CI 25.2-27.0%) and 19.8% (95% CI 19.0-20.6%), respectively. CONCLUSION/ INTERPRETATION: In a population-based high risk screening programme in primary care, HbA(1c) ≥ 6.0% combined with an elevated cardiovascular risk assessment (SCORE ≥ 5) can feasibly be used to identify those who may benefit from preventive lifestyle intervention and/or polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00237549. FUNDING: The study received unrestricted grants from Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Scandinavia, Astra Denmark, Pfizer Denmark, GlaxoSmithKline Pharma Denmark, Servier Denmark and HemoCue Denmark.
Authors: Richard Kahn; Peter Alperin; David Eddy; Knut Borch-Johnsen; John Buse; Justin Feigelman; Edward Gregg; Rury R Holman; M Sue Kirkman; Michael Stern; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Nick J Wareham Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-03-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lise Graversen; Bo Christensen; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Torsten Lauritzen; Annelli Sandbaek Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Marcel C Adriaanse; Jacqueline M Dekker; Giel Nijpels; Coen D A Stehouwer; Lex M Bouter; Robert J Heine Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: C Glümer; M Yuyun; S Griffin; D Farewell; D Spiegelhalter; A L Kinmonth; N J Wareham Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2006-04-26 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: A Sandbaek; S J Griffin; G Rutten; M Davies; R Stolk; K Khunti; K Borch-Johnsen; N J Wareham; T Lauritzen Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2008-04-29 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: I K Wium-Andersen; J Rungby; M B Jørgensen; A Sandbæk; M Osler; M K Wium-Andersen Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Nanna B Johansen; Anne-Louise S Hansen; Troels M Jensen; Annelotte Philipsen; Signe S Rasmussen; Marit E Jørgensen; Rebecca K Simmons; Torsten Lauritzen; Annelli Sandbæk; Daniel R Witte Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Annabelle S Slingerland; William H Herman; William K Redekop; Rob F Dijkstra; J Wouter Jukema; Louis W Niessen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 19.112