Karl K Vanderwood1, Mary Kaye Kramer2, Rachel G Miller2, Vincent C Arena3, Andrea M Kriska2. 1. University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States. Electronic address: kkv5@pitt.edu. 2. University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States. 3. University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.
Abstract
AIMS: Because blood-based screening to identify those with prediabetes to take part in Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) translation efforts can be costly and time-consuming, non-invasive methods are needed. The aims of this paper are to evaluate the ability of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk test in identifying individuals with prediabetes, as well as the use of body composition measures for this purpose. In addition the utility of these alternate methods to ascertain the presence of the metabolic syndrome was assessed. METHODS: Potential participants were recruited from a worksite and three community centers to take part in a DPP translation study. Participants completed onsite screening where anthropometric measures, fasting lipids and glucose, and hemoglobin A1c were assessed. Those with a BMI ≥24 kg/m(2) and prediabetes and/or the metabolic syndrome were eligible to participate. Non-invasive screening methods were evaluated for their ability to identify those with prediabetes and the metabolic syndrome based on clinically measured values. RESULTS: All non-invasive methods were highly sensitive (68.9% to 98.5%) in the detection of prediabetes, but specificity was low (6.7% to 44.5%). None of the alternatives evaluated achieved acceptable discrimination levels in ROC analysis. Similar results were noted in identifying the metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The non-invasive methods evaluated in this study effectively identify participants with prediabetes, but would also allow for enrollment of a large number of individuals who do not have prediabetes. Deciding whether to use these alternatives, blood-based measures, or a combination of both will ultimately depend on the purpose of the program and the level of flexibility regarding participant eligibility.
AIMS: Because blood-based screening to identify those with prediabetes to take part in Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) translation efforts can be costly and time-consuming, non-invasive methods are needed. The aims of this paper are to evaluate the ability of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk test in identifying individuals with prediabetes, as well as the use of body composition measures for this purpose. In addition the utility of these alternate methods to ascertain the presence of the metabolic syndrome was assessed. METHODS: Potential participants were recruited from a worksite and three community centers to take part in a DPP translation study. Participants completed onsite screening where anthropometric measures, fasting lipids and glucose, and hemoglobin A1c were assessed. Those with a BMI ≥24 kg/m(2) and prediabetes and/or the metabolic syndrome were eligible to participate. Non-invasive screening methods were evaluated for their ability to identify those with prediabetes and the metabolic syndrome based on clinically measured values. RESULTS: All non-invasive methods were highly sensitive (68.9% to 98.5%) in the detection of prediabetes, but specificity was low (6.7% to 44.5%). None of the alternatives evaluated achieved acceptable discrimination levels in ROC analysis. Similar results were noted in identifying the metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The non-invasive methods evaluated in this study effectively identify participants with prediabetes, but would also allow for enrollment of a large number of individuals who do not have prediabetes. Deciding whether to use these alternatives, blood-based measures, or a combination of both will ultimately depend on the purpose of the program and the level of flexibility regarding participant eligibility.
Authors: Robert Ratner; Ronald Goldberg; Steven Haffner; Santica Marcovina; Trevor Orchard; Sarah Fowler; Marinella Temprosa Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Trevor J Orchard; Marinella Temprosa; Ronald Goldberg; Steven Haffner; Robert Ratner; Santica Marcovina; Sarah Fowler Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-04-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: X R Pan; G W Li; Y H Hu; J X Wang; W Y Yang; Z X An; Z X Hu; J Lin; J Z Xiao; H B Cao; P A Liu; X G Jiang; Y Y Jiang; J P Wang; H Zheng; H Zhang; P H Bennett; B V Howard Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Marieke B Snijder; Jacqueline M Dekker; Marjolein Visser; Lex M Bouter; Coen D A Stehouwer; Piet J Kostense; John S Yudkin; Robert J Heine; Giel Nijpels; Jacob C Seidell Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: M Kaye Kramer; Andrea M Kriska; Elizabeth M Venditti; Rachel G Miller; Maria M Brooks; Lora E Burke; Linda M Siminerio; Francis X Solano; Trevor J Orchard Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: John Mark Boltri; Y Monique Davis-Smith; J Paul Seale; Sylvia Shellenberger; Ike S Okosun; Monica E Cornelius Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2008 Jan-Feb
Authors: Yvonne L Eaglehouse; Gerald L Schafer; Vincent C Arena; M Kaye Kramer; Rachel G Miller; Andrea M Kriska Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 4.147