S L Jackson1,2, S E Safo1,3, L R Staimez4, D E Olson1,5, K M V Narayan4, Q Long3, J Lipscomb6, M K Rhee1,5, P W F Wilson1, A M Tomolo1,7, L S Phillips1,5. 1. Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, GA, USA. 2. Nutrition and Health Sciences, Graduate Division of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 7. Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To test the hypothesis that a 50-g oral glucose challenge test with 1-h glucose measurement would have superior performance compared with other opportunistic screening methods. METHODS: In this prospective study in a Veterans Health Administration primary care clinic, the following test performances, measured by area under receiver-operating characteristic curves, were compared: 50-g oral glucose challenge test; random glucose; and HbA1c level, using a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test as the 'gold standard'. RESULTS: The study population was comprised of 1535 people (mean age 56 years, BMI 30.3 kg/m2 , 94% men, 74% black). By oral glucose tolerance test criteria, diabetes was present in 10% and high-risk prediabetes was present in 22% of participants. The plasma glucose challenge test provided area under receiver-operating characteristic curves of 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91) to detect diabetes and 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80) to detect high-risk dysglycaemia (diabetes or high-risk prediabetes), while area under receiver-operating characteristic curves for the capillary glucose challenge test were 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77) for diabetes and high-risk dysglycaemia, respectively. Random glucose performed less well [plasma: 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.82) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.62-0.71), respectively; capillary: 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.80) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.59-0.68), respectively], and HbA1c performed even less well [0.67 (95% CI 0.57-0.76) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.58-0.68), respectively]. The cost of identifying one case of high-risk dysglycaemia with a plasma glucose challenge test would be $42 from a Veterans Health Administration perspective, and $55 from a US Medicare perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Glucose challenge test screening, followed, if abnormal, by an oral glucose tolerance test, would be convenient and more accurate than other opportunistic tests. Use of glucose challenge test screening could improve management by permitting earlier therapy.
AIMS: To test the hypothesis that a 50-g oral glucose challenge test with 1-h glucose measurement would have superior performance compared with other opportunistic screening methods. METHODS: In this prospective study in a Veterans Health Administration primary care clinic, the following test performances, measured by area under receiver-operating characteristic curves, were compared: 50-g oral glucose challenge test; random glucose; and HbA1c level, using a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test as the 'gold standard'. RESULTS: The study population was comprised of 1535 people (mean age 56 years, BMI 30.3 kg/m2 , 94% men, 74% black). By oral glucose tolerance test criteria, diabetes was present in 10% and high-risk prediabetes was present in 22% of participants. The plasma glucose challenge test provided area under receiver-operating characteristic curves of 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91) to detect diabetes and 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80) to detect high-risk dysglycaemia (diabetes or high-risk prediabetes), while area under receiver-operating characteristic curves for the capillary glucose challenge test were 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77) for diabetes and high-risk dysglycaemia, respectively. Random glucose performed less well [plasma: 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.82) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.62-0.71), respectively; capillary: 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.80) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.59-0.68), respectively], and HbA1c performed even less well [0.67 (95% CI 0.57-0.76) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.58-0.68), respectively]. The cost of identifying one case of high-risk dysglycaemia with a plasma glucose challenge test would be $42 from a Veterans Health Administration perspective, and $55 from a US Medicare perspective. CONCLUSIONS:Glucose challenge test screening, followed, if abnormal, by an oral glucose tolerance test, would be convenient and more accurate than other opportunistic tests. Use of glucose challenge test screening could improve management by permitting earlier therapy.
Authors: Christian Meyer; Walkyria Pimenta; Hans J Woerle; Timon Van Haeften; Ervin Szoke; Asimina Mitrakou; John Gerich Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: David C Ziemer; Paul Kolm; William S Weintraub; Viola Vaccarino; Mary K Rhee; Jennifer G Twombly; K M Venkat Narayan; David D Koch; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Darin E Olson; Ming Zhu; Qi Long; Diana Barb; Jeehea S Haw; Mary K Rhee; Arun V Mohan; Phyllis I Watson-Williams; Sandra L Jackson; Anne M Tomolo; Peter W F Wilson; K M Venkat Narayan; Joseph Lipscomb; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rebecca K Simmons; Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui; Stephen J Sharp; Lincoln A Sargeant; Kate M Williams; A Toby Prevost; Ann Louise Kinmonth; Nicholas J Wareham; Simon J Griffin Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ramon Velazquez; An Tran; Egide Ishimwe; Larry Denner; Nikhil Dave; Salvatore Oddo; Kelly T Dineley Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Brandon C Farmer; Holden C Williams; Nicholas A Devanney; Margaret A Piron; Grant K Nation; David J Carter; Adeline E Walsh; Rebika Khanal; Lyndsay E A Young; Jude C Kluemper; Gabriela Hernandez; Elizabeth J Allenger; Rachel Mooney; Lesley R Golden; Cathryn T Smith; J Anthony Brandon; Vedant A Gupta; Philip A Kern; Matthew S Gentry; Josh M Morganti; Ramon C Sun; Lance A Johnson Journal: Mol Neurodegener Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 18.879
Authors: Michael Bergman; Muhammad Abdul-Ghani; Ralph A DeFronzo; Melania Manco; Giorgio Sesti; Teresa Vanessa Fiorentino; Antonio Ceriello; Mary Rhee; Lawrence S Phillips; Stephanie Chung; Celeste Cravalho; Ram Jagannathan; Louis Monnier; Claude Colette; David Owens; Cristina Bianchi; Stefano Del Prato; Mariana P Monteiro; João Sérgio Neves; Jose Luiz Medina; Maria Paula Macedo; Rogério Tavares Ribeiro; João Filipe Raposo; Brenda Dorcely; Nouran Ibrahim; Martin Buysschaert Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Mary K Rhee; Yuk-Lam Ho; Sridharan Raghavan; Jason L Vassy; Kelly Cho; David Gagnon; Lisa R Staimez; Christopher N Ford; Peter W F Wilson; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joseph Mussa; Sara Meltzer; Rachel Bond; Natasha Garfield; Kaberi Dasgupta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.390