AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The Leicester Practice Risk Score (LPRS) is a tool for identifying those at high risk of either impaired glucose regulation (IGR), defined as impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose, or type 2 diabetes from routine primary care data. The aim of this study was to determine the yield from the LPRS when applied in two diabetes prevention trials. METHODS: Let's Prevent Diabetes (LPD) and Walking Away from Diabetes (WAD) studies used the LPRS to identify people at risk of IGR or type 2 diabetes from 54 general practices. The top 10% at risk within each practice were invited for screening using a 75 g OGTT. The response rate to the invitation and the prevalence of IGR and/or type 2 diabetes in each study were calculated. RESULTS: Of those invited 19.2% (n = 3,449) in LPD and 22.1% (n = 833) in WAD attended. Of those screened for LPD 25.5% (95% CI 24.1, 27.0) had IGR and 4.5% (95% CI 3.8, 5.2) had type 2 diabetes, giving a prevalence of any abnormal glucose tolerance of 30.1% (95% CI 28.5, 31.6). Comparable rates were seen for the WAD study: IGR 26.5% (95% CI 23.5, 29.5), type 2 diabetes 3.0% (95% CI 1.8, 4.2) and IGR/type 2 diabetes 29.5% (95% CI 26.4, 32.6). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Using the LPRS identifies a high yield of people with abnormal glucose tolerance, significantly higher than those seen in a population screening programme in the same locality. The LPRS is an inexpensive and simple way of targeting screening programmes at those with the highest risk.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The Leicester Practice Risk Score (LPRS) is a tool for identifying those at high risk of either impaired glucose regulation (IGR), defined as impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose, or type 2 diabetes from routine primary care data. The aim of this study was to determine the yield from the LPRS when applied in two diabetes prevention trials. METHODS: Let's Prevent Diabetes (LPD) and Walking Away from Diabetes (WAD) studies used the LPRS to identify people at risk of IGR or type 2 diabetes from 54 general practices. The top 10% at risk within each practice were invited for screening using a 75 g OGTT. The response rate to the invitation and the prevalence of IGR and/or type 2 diabetes in each study were calculated. RESULTS: Of those invited 19.2% (n = 3,449) in LPD and 22.1% (n = 833) in WAD attended. Of those screened for LPD 25.5% (95% CI 24.1, 27.0) had IGR and 4.5% (95% CI 3.8, 5.2) had type 2 diabetes, giving a prevalence of any abnormal glucose tolerance of 30.1% (95% CI 28.5, 31.6). Comparable rates were seen for the WAD study: IGR 26.5% (95% CI 23.5, 29.5), type 2 diabetes 3.0% (95% CI 1.8, 4.2) and IGR/type 2 diabetes 29.5% (95% CI 26.4, 32.6). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Using the LPRS identifies a high yield of people with abnormal glucose tolerance, significantly higher than those seen in a population screening programme in the same locality. The LPRS is an inexpensive and simple way of targeting screening programmes at those with the highest risk.
Authors: D R Webb; L J Gray; K Khunti; B Srinivasan; N Taub; S Campbell; J Barnett; A Farooqi; J B Echouffo-Tcheugui; S J Griffin; N J Wareham; M J Davies Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Kamlesh Khunti; Clare L Gillies; Nicholas A Taub; Samiul A Mostafa; Stephen L Hiles; Keith R Abrams; Melanie J Davies Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: L J Gray; N A Taub; K Khunti; E Gardiner; S Hiles; D R Webb; B T Srinivasan; M J Davies Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Andrew R H Dalton; Alex Bottle; Cyprian Okoro; Azeem Majeed; Christopher Millett Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Simon J Griffin; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Guy E H M Rutten; Annelli Sandbæk; Stephen J Sharp; Rebecca K Simmons; Maureen van den Donk; Nicholas J Wareham; Torsten Lauritzen Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Benjamin J Gray; Richard M Bracken; Daniel Turner; Kerry Morgan; Michael Thomas; Sally P Williams; Meurig Williams; Sam Rice; Jeffrey W Stephens Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Thomas Yates; Joe Henson; Charlotte Edwardson; Danielle H Bodicoat; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Danielle H Bodicoat; Gary O'Donovan; Alice M Dalton; Laura J Gray; Thomas Yates; Charlotte Edwardson; Sian Hill; David R Webb; Kamlesh Khunti; Melanie J Davies; Andrew P Jones Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jeanine B Albu; Nancy Sohler; Rui Li; Xuan Li; Edwin Young; Edward W Gregg; Dennis Ross-Degnan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 19.112