Michael E Bowen1, Lei Xuan2, Ildiko Lingvay3, Ethan A Halm4. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: michael.bowen@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Random glucose <200 mg/dL is associated with undiagnosed diabetes but not included in screening guidelines. This study describes a case-finding approach using non-diagnostic random glucose values to identify individuals in need of diabetes testing and compares its performance to current screening guidelines. METHODS: In 2015, cross-sectional data from non-fasting adults without diagnosed diabetes or prediabetes (N=7,161) in the 2007-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys were analyzed. Random glucose and survey data were used to assemble the random glucose, American Diabetes Association (ADA), and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening strategies and predict diabetes using hemoglobin A1c criteria. RESULTS: Using random glucose ≥100 mg/dL to select individuals for diabetes testing was 81.6% (95% CI=74.9%, 88.4%) sensitive, 78% (95% CI=76.6%, 79.5%) specific and had an area under the receiver operating curve (AROC) of 0.80 (95% CI=0.78, 0.83) to detect undiagnosed diabetes. Overall performance of ADA (AROC=0.59, 95% CI=0.58, 0.60), 2008 USPSTF (AROC=0.62, 95% CI=0.59, 0.65), and 2015 USPSTF (AROC=0.64, 95% CI=0.61, 0.67) guidelines was similar. The random glucose strategy correctly identified one case of undiagnosed diabetes for every 14 people screened, which was more efficient than ADA (number needed to screen, 35), 2008 USPSTF (44), and 2015 USPSTF (32) guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Using random glucose ≥100 mg/dL to identify individuals in need of diabetes screening is highly sensitive and specific, performing better than current screening guidelines. Case-finding strategies informed by random glucose data may improve diabetes detection. Further evaluation of this strategy's effectiveness in real-world clinical practice is needed.
INTRODUCTION:Random glucose <200 mg/dL is associated with undiagnosed diabetes but not included in screening guidelines. This study describes a case-finding approach using non-diagnostic random glucose values to identify individuals in need of diabetes testing and compares its performance to current screening guidelines. METHODS: In 2015, cross-sectional data from non-fasting adults without diagnosed diabetes or prediabetes (N=7,161) in the 2007-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys were analyzed. Random glucose and survey data were used to assemble the random glucose, American Diabetes Association (ADA), and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening strategies and predict diabetes using hemoglobin A1c criteria. RESULTS: Using random glucose ≥100 mg/dL to select individuals for diabetes testing was 81.6% (95% CI=74.9%, 88.4%) sensitive, 78% (95% CI=76.6%, 79.5%) specific and had an area under the receiver operating curve (AROC) of 0.80 (95% CI=0.78, 0.83) to detect undiagnosed diabetes. Overall performance of ADA (AROC=0.59, 95% CI=0.58, 0.60), 2008 USPSTF (AROC=0.62, 95% CI=0.59, 0.65), and 2015 USPSTF (AROC=0.64, 95% CI=0.61, 0.67) guidelines was similar. The random glucose strategy correctly identified one case of undiagnosed diabetes for every 14 people screened, which was more efficient than ADA (number needed to screen, 35), 2008 USPSTF (44), and 2015 USPSTF (32) guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Using random glucose ≥100 mg/dL to identify individuals in need of diabetes screening is highly sensitive and specific, performing better than current screening guidelines. Case-finding strategies informed by random glucose data may improve diabetes detection. Further evaluation of this strategy's effectiveness in real-world clinical practice is needed.
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: 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: David C Ziemer; Paul Kolm; William S Weintraub; Viola Vaccarino; Mary K Rhee; Jane M Caudle; Jade M Irving; David D Koch; K M Venkat Narayan; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-02-29 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ann M Sheehy; Grace E Flood; Wen-Jan Tuan; Jinn-ing Liou; Douglas B Coursin; Maureen A Smith Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 7.616
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: 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: 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: Michael E Bowen; Zahra Merchant; Kazeen Abdullah; Deepa Bhat; Jason Fish; Ethan A Halm Journal: Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-29