Matthew J O'Brien1,2,3, Kai McKeever Bullard4, Yan Zhang4, Edward W Gregg4, Mercedes R Carnethon5, Namratha R Kandula6,7,5, Ronald T Ackermann6,7. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. matthew.obrien1@northwestern.edu. 2. Center for Community Health, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. matthew.obrien1@northwestern.edu. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. matthew.obrien1@northwestern.edu. 4. Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Center for Community Health, Institute of Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2015, The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes (collectively called dysglycemia) among adults aged 40-70 years with overweight or obesity. The recommendation suggests that clinicians consider screening earlier in people who have other diabetes risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of limited and expanded screening criteria recommended by the USPSTF for detecting dysglycemia among US adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of survey and laboratory data collected from nationally representative samples of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US adult population. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3643 adults without diagnosed diabetes who underwent measurement of hemoglobin A1c (A1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-h plasma glucose (2-h PG). MAIN MEASURES: Screening eligibility according to the limited criteria was based on age 40 to 70 years old and overweight/obesity. Screening eligibility according to the expanded criteria was determined by meeting the limited criteria or having ≥ 1 of the following risk factors: family history of diabetes, history of gestational diabetes or polycystic ovarian syndrome, and non-white race/ethnicity. Dysglycemia was defined by A1c ≥ 5.7%, FPG ≥ 100 mg/dL, and/or 2-h PG ≥ 140 mg/dL. KEY RESULTS: Among the US adult population without diagnosed diabetes, 49.7% had dysglycemia. Screening based on the limited criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 47.3% (95% CI, 44.7-50.0%) and specificity of 71.4% (95% CI, 67.3-75.2%). The expanded criteria yielded higher sensitivity [76.8% (95% CI, 73.5-79.8%)] and lower specificity [33.8% (95% CI, 30.1-37.7%)]. Point estimates for the sensitivity of the limited criteria were lower in all minority groups and significantly different for Asians compared to non-Hispanic whites [29.9% (95% CI, 23.4-37.2%) vs. 49.8% (95% CI, 45.9-53.7%); P < .001]. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes screening that follows the limited USPSTF criteria will identify approximately half of US adults with dysglycemia. Screening other high-risk subgroups defined in the USPSTF recommendation would improve detection of dysglycemia and may reduce associated racial/ethnic disparities.
BACKGROUND: In 2015, The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes (collectively called dysglycemia) among adults aged 40-70 years with overweight or obesity. The recommendation suggests that clinicians consider screening earlier in people who have other diabetes risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of limited and expanded screening criteria recommended by the USPSTF for detecting dysglycemia among US adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of survey and laboratory data collected from nationally representative samples of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US adult population. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3643 adults without diagnosed diabetes who underwent measurement of hemoglobin A1c (A1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-h plasma glucose (2-h PG). MAIN MEASURES: Screening eligibility according to the limited criteria was based on age 40 to 70 years old and overweight/obesity. Screening eligibility according to the expanded criteria was determined by meeting the limited criteria or having ≥ 1 of the following risk factors: family history of diabetes, history of gestational diabetes or polycystic ovarian syndrome, and non-white race/ethnicity. Dysglycemia was defined by A1c ≥ 5.7%, FPG ≥ 100 mg/dL, and/or 2-h PG ≥ 140 mg/dL. KEY RESULTS: Among the US adult population without diagnosed diabetes, 49.7% had dysglycemia. Screening based on the limited criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 47.3% (95% CI, 44.7-50.0%) and specificity of 71.4% (95% CI, 67.3-75.2%). The expanded criteria yielded higher sensitivity [76.8% (95% CI, 73.5-79.8%)] and lower specificity [33.8% (95% CI, 30.1-37.7%)]. Point estimates for the sensitivity of the limited criteria were lower in all minority groups and significantly different for Asians compared to non-Hispanic whites [29.9% (95% CI, 23.4-37.2%) vs. 49.8% (95% CI, 45.9-53.7%); P < .001]. CONCLUSIONS:Diabetes screening that follows the limited USPSTF criteria will identify approximately half of US adults with dysglycemia. Screening other high-risk subgroups defined in the USPSTF recommendation would improve detection of dysglycemia and may reduce associated racial/ethnic disparities.
Authors: Sukyung Chung; Kristen M J Azar; Marshall Baek; Diane S Lauderdale; Latha P Palaniappan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Loes C Lanting; Inez M A Joung; Johan P Mackenbach; Steven W J Lamberts; Aart H Bootsma Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: George A Bray; Kathleen A Jablonski; Wilfred Y Fujimoto; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Steven Haffner; Robert L Hanson; James O Hill; Van Hubbard; Andrea Kriska; Elizabeth Stamm; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Dana Dabelea; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Sharon Saydah; Giuseppina Imperatore; Barbara Linder; Jasmin Divers; Ronny Bell; Angela Badaru; Jennifer W Talton; Tessa Crume; Angela D Liese; Anwar T Merchant; Jean M Lawrence; Kristi Reynolds; Lawrence Dolan; Lenna L Liu; Richard F Hamman Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William C Hsu; Maria Rosario G Araneta; Alka M Kanaya; Jane L Chiang; Wilfred Fujimoto Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jennifer J Iyengar; Mary E K Fisher; Julie E Ziegler; Douglas W Wright; Meghan C Monson; Cheryl L Rhodes Dehmlow; Keturah P Schacht; Jennifer A Wyckoff; Audrey L Fan Journal: Clin Diabetes Date: 2022-01
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: Sean Mahoney; Adam Bradley; Logan Pitts; Stephanie Waletzko; Sheria G Robinson-Lane; Timothy Fairchild; Donna J Terbizan; Ryan McGrath Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.390