Joshua M Evron1, William H Herman1,2, Laura N McEwen3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI lmattei@umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Screening involves the presumptive identification of asymptomatic individuals at increased risk for unrecognized disease. We examined changes in screening practices for prediabetes and diabetes since January 2010, when HbA1c was first recommended as an option for screening and diagnosis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied members without diabetes of an HMO ≥45 years of age continuously enrolled for ≥3 years and assigned to primary care clinicians affiliated with a large academic health system. We defined screening as the first oral glucose tolerance test, HbA1c, or glucose test performed between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS: Of 12,772 eligible patients, 9,941 (78%) were screened at least once over 3 years. HbA1c was the initial screening test 14% of the time and glucose 86% of the time. Of those screened with HbA1c, 63% had abnormal results defined as HbA1c ≥5.7% (≥39 mmol/mol). Of those tested with glucose, 30% had abnormal results defined as glucose ≥100 mg/dL, and 5% had abnormal results defined as glucose ≥126 mg/dL. Patients with abnormal HbA1c levels and those with glucose levels ≥126 mg/dL were equally likely to be scheduled for follow-up appointments (41% vs. 39%), but those with abnormal HbA1c levels were more likely to be diagnosed with prediabetes or diabetes (36% vs. 26%). CONCLUSIONS: As we observed in 2004, rates of screening are high. HbA1c is still used less frequently than glucose for screening but is more likely to result in a clinical diagnosis. Evidence to support guidelines to define the role of random glucose screening, including definition of appropriate cut points and follow-up, is needed.
OBJECTIVE: Screening involves the presumptive identification of asymptomatic individuals at increased risk for unrecognized disease. We examined changes in screening practices for prediabetes and diabetes since January 2010, when HbA1c was first recommended as an option for screening and diagnosis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied members without diabetes of an HMO ≥45 years of age continuously enrolled for ≥3 years and assigned to primary care clinicians affiliated with a large academic health system. We defined screening as the first oral glucose tolerance test, HbA1c, or glucose test performed between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS: Of 12,772 eligible patients, 9,941 (78%) were screened at least once over 3 years. HbA1c was the initial screening test 14% of the time and glucose 86% of the time. Of those screened with HbA1c, 63% had abnormal results defined as HbA1c ≥5.7% (≥39 mmol/mol). Of those tested with glucose, 30% had abnormal results defined as glucose ≥100 mg/dL, and 5% had abnormal results defined as glucose ≥126 mg/dL. Patients with abnormal HbA1c levels and those with glucose levels ≥126 mg/dL were equally likely to be scheduled for follow-up appointments (41% vs. 39%), but those with abnormal HbA1c levels were more likely to be diagnosed with prediabetes or diabetes (36% vs. 26%). CONCLUSIONS: As we observed in 2004, rates of screening are high. HbA1c is still used less frequently than glucose for screening but is more likely to result in a clinical diagnosis. Evidence to support guidelines to define the role of random glucose screening, including definition of appropriate cut points and follow-up, is needed.
Authors: Tannaz Moin; Jinnan Li; O Kenrik Duru; Susan Ettner; Norman Turk; Abigail Keckhafer; Sam Ho; Carol M Mangione Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: D B Rolka; K M Narayan; T J Thompson; D Goldman; J Lindenmayer; K Alich; D Bacall; E M Benjamin; B Lamb; D O Stuart; M M Engelgau Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: David M Nathan; John B Buse; Mayer B Davidson; Ele Ferrannini; Rury R Holman; Robert Sherwin; Bernard Zinman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Michael Bergman; Muhammad Abdul-Ghani; João Sérgio Neves; Mariana P Monteiro; Jose Luiz Medina; Brenda Dorcely; Martin Buysschaert Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.958
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: Amanda L Trout; Christopher J McLouth; Patrick Kitzman; Michael R Dobbs; Lisa Bellamy; Kelley Elkins; Justin F Fraser Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-09
Authors: Margarita Ortiz-Martínez; Mirna González-González; Alexandro J Martagón; Victoria Hlavinka; Richard C Willson; Marco Rito-Palomares Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 5.430
Authors: Xinge Zhang; Hongjiang Wu; Baoqi Fan; Mai Shi; Eric S H Lau; Aimin Yang; Elaine Chow; Alice P S Kong; Juliana C N Chan; Ronald C W Ma; Andrea O Y Luk Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 11.613