HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wang, W. Articles by Howard, B. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wang, W. Articles by Howard, B. V. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Using HbA_1c to Improve Efficacy of the American Diabetes Association Fasting Plasma Glucose Criterion in Screening for New Type 2 Diabetes in American Indians

The Strong Heart Study

¹ College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma, Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
² National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
³ Aberdeen Area Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board, Aberdeen, South Dakota
⁴ Medlantic Research Institute, Washington, DC

OBJECTIVE—To find an optimal critical line in the fasting plasma glucose (FPG)-HbA_1c plane for identifying diabetes in participants with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and thereby improve the efficacy of using FPG alone in diabetes screening among American Indians.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We used FPG, 2-h postload glucose (2hPG), and HbA_1c measured in the 2,389 American Indians (aged 45–74 years, without diabetes treatment or prior history of diabetes) in the Strong Heart Study (SHS) baseline (second) examination. Participants were classified as having diabetes if they had either FPG 126 mg/dl or 2hPG 200 mg/dl, as having IFG if they had 110 FPG < 126 mg/dl, and as having normal fasting glucose (NFG) if they had FPG <110, according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) definition. Logistic regression models were used for identifying diabetes (2hPG 200 mg/dl) in IFG participants. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves generated by different logistic regression models were evaluated and compared to select the best model. A utility function based on the best model and the cost-to-benefit ratio was used to find the optimal critical line. The data from the second examination were used to study the effect of the time interval between the successive diabetes screenings on both the FPG criterion and the optimal critical line.

RESULTS—A total of 37% of all subjects with new diabetes at baseline and 55.2% of those in the second exam had 2hPG 200 but FPG <126. There was a very large portion of IFG participants with diabetes (19.3 and 22.9% in the baseline and second exam, respectively). Among the areas under the ROC curves, the area generated by the logistic regression model on FPG plus HbA_1c is the largest and is significantly larger than that based on FPG (P = 0.0008). For a cost-to-benefit ratio of 0.23888, the optimal critical line that has the highest utility is: 0.89 x HbA_1c + 0.11 x FPG = 17.92. Those IFG participants whose FPG and HbA_1c were above or on the line were referred to take an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose diabetes. The optimal critical line is lower if a successive diabetes screening will be conducted 4 years after the previous screening.

CONCLUSIONS—FPG 126 and 2hPG 200, as suggested by the ADA, are used independently to define diabetes. The FPG level is easy to obtain, and using FPG alone is suggested for diabetes screening. It is difficult to get physicians and patients to perform an OGTT to get a 2hPG level because of the many drawbacks of the OGTT, especially in those patients who already have FPG <126. It is also impractical to conduct an OGTT for everyone in a diabetes screening. Our data show that 37% of all subjects with new diabetes in the SHS baseline exam and 55.2% of those in the second exam have 2hPG 200 but FPG <126. These cases of diabetes cannot be detected if FPG is used alone in a diabetes screening. Therefore, although the small portion of diabetes in the NFG group (4.7% in the baseline and 6.9% in the second exam) may be ignored, those cases of diabetes among IFG participants (20% in our data) need further consideration in a diabetes screening. It may be worthwhile for those IFG participants identified by the optimal critical line to take an OGTT. The optimal critical line and time interval between successive diabetes screenings need further study.

Abbreviations: 2hPG, 2-h postload glucose • ADA, American Diabetes Association • FPG, fasting plasma glucose • 2hPG, IFG, impaired fasting glucose • INNSZ, Instituto Nacional de la Nutricion Salvador Zubiran • NFG, normal fasting glucose • OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test • ROC, receiver operating characteristic • SHS, Strong Heart Study

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Genuth and R. Kahn A Step Backward--or Is it Forward? Diabetes Care, June 1, 2008; 31(6): 1093 - 1096. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Wang, E. T. Lee, R. R. Fabsitz, R. Devereux, L. Best, T. K. Welty, and B. V. Howard A Longitudinal Study of Hypertension Risk Factors and Their Relation to Cardiovascular Disease: The Strong Heart Study Hypertension, March 1, 2006; 47(3): 403 - 409. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classificati Follow-up Report on the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Clin. Diabetes, April 1, 2004; 22(2): 71 - 79. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Gough and R. Peveler Diabetes and its prevention: pragmatic solutions for people with schizophrenia The British Journal of Psychiatry, April 1, 2004; 184(47): s106 - s111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Follow-up Report on the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Diabetes Spectr, January 1, 2004; 17(1): 51 - 59. [Full Text] [PDF]

				The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classifi Follow-up Report on the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Diabetes Care, November 1, 2003; 26(11): 3160 - 3167. [Full Text] [PDF]