Eduard Poltavskiy1, Dae Jung Kim2, Heejung Bang3. 1. Graduate Group in Epidemiology, University of California, Davis, USA. 2. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea. 3. Graduate Group in Epidemiology, University of California, Davis, USA; Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, USA. Electronic address: hbang@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
AIMS: There are numerous risk or screening scores for the prediction of type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM). In contrast, few scores are available for preDM. In this paper, we compare the two screening scores from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that can be used for DM as well as preDM. METHODS: Adult participants (N=9391) without known DM from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009-12 were included. We fitted the factors/items in the ADA and CDC scores in logistic regression with the outcomes of undiagnosed DM, preDM, and combination, and assessed the association and discrimination accuracy. We also evaluated the suggested cutpoints that define high risk individuals. We mimicked the original models/settings but also tested various deviations/modifications often encountered in practice. RESULTS: Both scores performed well and robustly, while the ADA score performed somewhat better (e.g., AUC=0.77 for ADA and 0.73-0.74 for CDC for DM; 0.72-0.74 and 0.70-0.71 for preDM). The same predictors and scoring rules seem to be reasonably justified with different cutpoints for DM and preDM, which can make usage easier and consistent. Some factors such as race and HDL/LDL cholesterols may be useful additions to health education. CONCLUSIONS: Current DM education and screening focus on the prevention and management of DM. The ADA and CDC scores could further help when we identify individuals at high risk for preDM, and teach the importance of preDM during which lifestyle intervention can be effective and urgently needed.
AIMS: There are numerous risk or screening scores for the prediction of type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM). In contrast, few scores are available for preDM. In this paper, we compare the two screening scores from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that can be used for DM as well as preDM. METHODS: Adult participants (N=9391) without known DM from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009-12 were included. We fitted the factors/items in the ADA and CDC scores in logistic regression with the outcomes of undiagnosed DM, preDM, and combination, and assessed the association and discrimination accuracy. We also evaluated the suggested cutpoints that define high risk individuals. We mimicked the original models/settings but also tested various deviations/modifications often encountered in practice. RESULTS: Both scores performed well and robustly, while the ADA score performed somewhat better (e.g., AUC=0.77 for ADA and 0.73-0.74 for CDC for DM; 0.72-0.74 and 0.70-0.71 for preDM). The same predictors and scoring rules seem to be reasonably justified with different cutpoints for DM and preDM, which can make usage easier and consistent. Some factors such as race and HDL/LDL cholesterols may be useful additions to health education. CONCLUSIONS: Current DM education and screening focus on the prevention and management of DM. The ADA and CDC scores could further help when we identify individuals at high risk for preDM, and teach the importance of preDM during which lifestyle intervention can be effective and urgently needed.
Authors: Harald J Schneider; Nele Friedrich; Jens Klotsche; Lars Pieper; Matthias Nauck; Ulrich John; Marcus Dörr; Stephan Felix; Hendrik Lehnert; David Pittrow; Sigmund Silber; Henry Völzke; Günter K Stalla; Henri Wallaschofski; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-02-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Andrew P DeFilippis; Rebekah Young; Christopher J Carrubba; John W McEvoy; Matthew J Budoff; Roger S Blumenthal; Richard A Kronmal; Robyn L McClelland; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Blaha Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mae Thamer; James S Kaufman; Yi Zhang; Qian Zhang; Dennis J Cotter; Heejung Bang Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Heejung Bang; Madhu Mazumdar; George Newman; Andrew S Bomback; Christie M Ballantyne; Allan S Jaffe; Phyllis A August; Abhijit V Kshirsagar Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Andreas Grigoriadis; Ismo T Räisänen; Pirjo Pärnänen; Taina Tervahartiala; Timo Sorsa; Dimitra Sakellari Journal: Clin Exp Dent Res Date: 2020-12-10