BACKGROUND: We examined the accuracy of random capillary glucose (RCG) and two noninvasive screening methods, the ADA diabetes risk test (DRT) and skin fluorescence spectroscopy (SFS) as measured by Scout DS for detecting HbA1c-defined dysglycemia or type 2 diabetes in an at-risk cohort. METHODS: Subjects were recruited at two clinical sites for a single non-fasting visit. Each subject had measurements of height, weight and waist circumference. A diabetes score was calculated from skin fluorescence measured on the left forearm. A finger prick was done to measure RCG and HbA1c (A1C). Health questionnaires were completed for the DRT. Increasing dysglycemia was defined as A1C ≥ 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) or ≥ 6.0% (42 mmol/mol). Type 2 diabetes was defined as A1C ≥ 6.5% (47.5 mmol/mol). RESULTS: 398 of 409 subjects had complete data for analysis with means for age, body mass index, and waist of 52 years, 27 kg/m(2) and 90 cm. 51% were male. Prevalence of A1C ≥ 5.7%, ≥ 6.0% and ≥ 6.5% were 54%, 34% and 12%, respectively. Areas under the curve (AUC) for detection of increasing levels dysglycemia or diabetes for RCG were 63%, 66% and 72%, for the ADA DRT the AUCs were 75%, 76% and 81% and for SFS the AUCs were 82%, 84% and 90%, respectively. For each level of dysglycemia or diabetes, the SFS AUC was significantly higher than RCG or the ADA DRT. CONCLUSIONS: The noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy measurement outperformed both RCG and the ADA DRT for detection of A1C-defined dysglycemia or diabetes in an at-risk cohort.
BACKGROUND: We examined the accuracy of random capillary glucose (RCG) and two noninvasive screening methods, the ADA diabetes risk test (DRT) and skin fluorescence spectroscopy (SFS) as measured by Scout DS for detecting HbA1c-defined dysglycemia or type 2 diabetes in an at-risk cohort. METHODS: Subjects were recruited at two clinical sites for a single non-fasting visit. Each subject had measurements of height, weight and waist circumference. A diabetes score was calculated from skin fluorescence measured on the left forearm. A finger prick was done to measure RCG and HbA1c (A1C). Health questionnaires were completed for the DRT. Increasing dysglycemia was defined as A1C ≥ 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) or ≥ 6.0% (42 mmol/mol). Type 2 diabetes was defined as A1C ≥ 6.5% (47.5 mmol/mol). RESULTS: 398 of 409 subjects had complete data for analysis with means for age, body mass index, and waist of 52 years, 27 kg/m(2) and 90 cm. 51% were male. Prevalence of A1C ≥ 5.7%, ≥ 6.0% and ≥ 6.5% were 54%, 34% and 12%, respectively. Areas under the curve (AUC) for detection of increasing levels dysglycemia or diabetes for RCG were 63%, 66% and 72%, for the ADA DRT the AUCs were 75%, 76% and 81% and for SFS the AUCs were 82%, 84% and 90%, respectively. For each level of dysglycemia or diabetes, the SFS AUC was significantly higher than RCG or the ADA DRT. CONCLUSIONS: The noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy measurement outperformed both RCG and the ADA DRT for detection of A1C-defined dysglycemia or diabetes in an at-risk cohort.
Authors: Karl K Vanderwood; Mary Kaye Kramer; Rachel G Miller; Vincent C Arena; Andrea M Kriska Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 5.602