Michael E Bowen1, Lei Xuan, Ildiko Lingvay, Ethan A Halm. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.E.B., E.A.H.), Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences (M.E.B., L.X., E.A.H.), Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine (I.L.), and Department of Clinical Sciences (I.L.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75390.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although random blood glucose (RBG) values are common in clinical practice, the role of elevated RBG values as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes is not well described. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine nondiagnostic, RBG values as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) participants (2005-2010). PARTICIPANTS: Nonfasting NHANES participants (n = 13 792) without diagnosed diabetes were included. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was glycemic status (normal glycemia, undiagnosed prediabetes, or undiagnosed diabetes) using hemoglobin HbA1C as the criterion standard. ANALYSIS: Multinomial logistic regression examined associations between diabetes risk factors and RBG values according to glycemic status. Associations between current U.S. screening strategies and a hypothetical RBG screening strategy with undiagnosed diabetes were examined. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, a single RBG ≥ 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) was more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than any single risk factor (odds ratio [OR], 31.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21.3-45.5) and remained strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes (OR, 20.4; 95% CI, 14.0-29.6) after adjustment for traditional diabetes risk factors. Using RBG < 100 mg/dL as a reference, the adjusted odds of undiagnosed diabetes increased significantly as RBG increased. RBG 100-119 mg/dL (OR 7.1; 95% CI 4.4-11.4); RBG 120-139 mg/dL (OR 30.3; 95% CI 20.0-46.0); RBG ≥ 140 mg/dL (OR 256; 95% CI 150.0-436.9). As a hypothetical screening strategy, an elevated RBG was more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than current United States Preventative Services Task Force guidelines (hypertension alone; P < .0001) and similar to American Diabetes Association guidelines (P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: A single RBG ≥ 100 mg/dL is more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than traditional risk factors. Abnormal RBG values are a risk factor for diabetes and should be considered in screening guidelines.
CONTEXT: Although random blood glucose (RBG) values are common in clinical practice, the role of elevated RBG values as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes is not well described. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine nondiagnostic, RBG values as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) participants (2005-2010). PARTICIPANTS: Nonfasting NHANES participants (n = 13 792) without diagnosed diabetes were included. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was glycemic status (normal glycemia, undiagnosed prediabetes, or undiagnosed diabetes) using hemoglobin HbA1C as the criterion standard. ANALYSIS: Multinomial logistic regression examined associations between diabetes risk factors and RBG values according to glycemic status. Associations between current U.S. screening strategies and a hypothetical RBG screening strategy with undiagnosed diabetes were examined. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, a single RBG ≥ 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) was more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than any single risk factor (odds ratio [OR], 31.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21.3-45.5) and remained strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes (OR, 20.4; 95% CI, 14.0-29.6) after adjustment for traditional diabetes risk factors. Using RBG < 100 mg/dL as a reference, the adjusted odds of undiagnosed diabetes increased significantly as RBG increased. RBG 100-119 mg/dL (OR 7.1; 95% CI 4.4-11.4); RBG 120-139 mg/dL (OR 30.3; 95% CI 20.0-46.0); RBG ≥ 140 mg/dL (OR 256; 95% CI 150.0-436.9). As a hypothetical screening strategy, an elevated RBG was more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than current United States Preventative Services Task Force guidelines (hypertension alone; P < .0001) and similar to American Diabetes Association guidelines (P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: A single RBG ≥ 100 mg/dL is more strongly associated with undiagnosed diabetes than traditional risk factors. Abnormal RBG values are a risk factor for diabetes and should be considered in screening guidelines.
Authors: David B Sacks; Mark Arnold; George L Bakris; David E Bruns; Andrea Rita Horvath; M Sue Kirkman; Ake Lernmark; Boyd E Metzger; David M Nathan Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: S E Kahn; R L Prigeon; D K McCulloch; E J Boyko; R N Bergman; M W Schwartz; J L Neifing; W K Ward; J C Beard; J P Palmer Journal: Diabetes Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Linda S Geiss; Cherie James; Edward W Gregg; Ann Albright; David F Williamson; Catherine C Cowie Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: David C Ziemer; Paul Kolm; Jovonne K Foster; William S Weintraub; Viola Vaccarino; Mary K Rhee; Rincy M Varughese; Circe W Tsui; David D Koch; Jennifer G Twombly; K M Venkat Narayan; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Udoka Obinwa; Adriana Pérez; Ildiko Lingvay; Luigi Meneghini; Ethan A Halm; Michael E Bowen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: M Larissa Avilés-Santa; Neil Schneiderman; Peter J Savage; Robert C Kaplan; Yanping Teng; Cynthia M Pérez; Erick L Suárez; Jianwen Cai; Aida L Giachello; Gregory A Talavera; Catherine C Cowie Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Michael E Bowen; Julie A Schmittdiel; Jeffrey T Kullgren; Ronald T Ackermann; Matthew J O'Brien Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Michael E Bowen; Zahra Merchant; Kazeen Abdullah; Deepa Bhat; Jason Fish; Ethan A Halm Journal: Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-29