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

This Article Extract 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 Engelgau, M. M Articles by Vinicor, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Engelgau, M. M Articles by Vinicor, F. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Identifying the Target Population for Primary Prevention

The Trade-Offs

From The Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Compelling evidence now exists that type 2 diabetes can be prevented or delayed in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (2-h oral glucose tolerance test [OGTT] 140–199 mg/dl) (1–4), a group at great risk for subsequent diabetes and cardiovascular disease (5,6). This evidence has held consistently across different populations, in different countries, among men and women, and in all age and racial and ethnic groups. Based on these studies, national health organizations, including those in the U.S. and Finland, are now calling for action (7,8). The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recommended to consider clinic-based (opportunistic) screening for prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose [IFG] 110–125 mg/dl or IGT) among persons aged >45 years and among younger persons with other diabetes risk factors; they strongly recommend opportunistic screening in persons aged >45 years with BMI 25 kg/m² (7). Approximately one-third of individuals with either IFG or IGT and two-thirds of individuals with both will develop extant diabetes within 6 years (5). However, at present we know little about validated strategies to detect prediabetes in the "real world." Using fasting, random, and postprandial glucose measurements or A1C levels are options. Anecdotally, performing glucose challenges is cumbersome, difficult, more costly, time consuming, and less acceptable to both patients and health care providers than fasting glucose or A1C measurements. Thus, our first clinical and public health challenge for primary prevention is clear: how are we going to find people with prediabetes?

The study of Saydah et al. (9) in this issue of Diabetes Care begins to shed light on this important question. They examined detection strategies aimed at minimizing the use of OGTTs and identifying persons with IGT who would have been eligible for the U.S. Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) by using BMI in combination with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and A1C measurements. Population-based data (from the Third National Health and Nutrional Examination Survey [NHANES III]) for individuals 40- to 74-years-old found that 11% of this group met DPP eligibility criteria (BMI 24 kg/m² and 2-h OGTT 140–199 mg/dl, and FPG 96–125 mg/dl). Using cut points of BMI 24 kg/m² and FPG 105 mg/dl would result in recommending OGTTs for 37% of the general population and the detection of 56% of the total IGT population (missing 44%); using the same BMI cut point and an A1C 5.5% cut point would result in recommending OGTTs in 38% of the population and the detection of 60% (missing 40%). Enriching the population based on age, race, and family history of diabetes did not significantly reduce the proportion that would be recommended for OGTT or enhance the detection rate. Subanalyses also found that requiring BMI 24 kg/m² and either an FPG 105 mg/dl or an A1C 5.5% can detect 83% of cases, but the proportion of the population who would be recommended for an OGTT would probably increase sharply. In general, lower glucose or A1C cut points can detect more cases but will require more OGTTs. Saydah et al. also recommended an annual FPG test so that missed cases can be detected in the following year. Thus, trade-offs using different strategies can offer various advantages.

Although this study helps address the problem of detecting prediabetes, some issues remain unclear. First, as the authors note, the NHANES III data do not have OGTT information on all DPP age-groups, specifically those aged 25–39 years and >74 years. Thus, finding all DPP-eligible persons was not possible. Second, we do not know how these findings help apply the current ADA recommendations (7), which call for detecting all prediabetes in the population attending clinics who are aged >45 years—not simply those with IGT. Targeting all those with prediabetes is justified by the level of risk for diabetes, the potential for benefiting from the primary prevention interventions, and the potential for a successful intervention if subjects are aware of their risk status (10).

At least two other studies have examined prediabetes detection strategies. One was conducted among a clinic-based population, whereas the other was a population-based study that included detailed clinical measurements (11,12). Rolka et al. (11) studied a clinic-based population using risk assessment questionnaires and random capillary glucose (RCG) measurements to detect dysglycemia (IGT, IFG, or undiagnosed diabetes). They found an RCG measurement alone performed better than the risk assessment questionnaires alone to detect prediabetes. In the population-based study by Stern et al. (12), the ability to predict diabetes for a 7.5-year period using "routinely available" clinical information (i.e., age, sex, ethnicity, fasting glucose, systolic blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, BMI, and family history of diabetes) was assessed. This model was a better predictor than a 2-h OGTT measure alone, although it would miss current unrecognized diabetes (which would require a 2-h OGTT).

Many other ongoing studies that are examining the ability of various strategies to predict diabetes may be forthcoming and may shed more insight. The optimal method should become more apparent over the next few years as additional information becomes available. At present, there are at least two reasons to consider a fuller assessment of glycemic status (i.e., considering measurement of both FBG and postprandial tests). First, primary prevention interventions requires long-term commitment of substantial health care resources that will likely far exceed the resources required for any case identification strategy (13). Thus, for now, we should be sure that most persons (in order to gain the benefit from extant science) actually have prediabetes before they are referred and treated. This can be accomplished using both fasting and postprandial tests. Second, without full glycemic testing, we cannot be certain whether unrecognized diabetes is present because it may occur with either a normal fasting glucose and diagnostic 2-h glucose or a normal 2-h OGTT glucose and a diagnostic fasting glucose. If diabetes is present, nutritional and activity recommendations may be similar for prediabetes and diabetes, but treatment goals and the choice of medication for glycemia, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia are different, as is the need to screen for existing complications.

To take advantage of the benefits of primary prevention, our first step should be to find sound prediabetes detection strategies. We also need to know more about the performance, costs, feasibility, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the various strategies. In addition, further thinking may be needed to refine our definition of prediabetes and diabetes. While thinking about these, we must strike a balance between "easier" detection strategies with lower certainty of correctly identifying most and only prediabetes and diabetes, and more "difficult" strategies that provide greater certainty but are more complex and costly. Although the risk model by Stern et al. reports clinical factors that perform well as predictors, Saydah et al. and others have found the standard diabetes risk factors of little help. The population-based Hoorn Study (7) found the fasting and 2-h glucose levels to be the most important predictors of future diabetes.

While there may be several advantages to using fasting glucose and A1C measurements, assuming that we can minimize the requirement for some type of postprandial glucose measurement may be premature. Other "friendlier" strategies, such as a self-administered standardized meal, similar to that used during the Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study in China (3), need closer examination and may provide an alternative to usual glucose tolerance testing. We have taken some of the initial steps to identify the target population but more steps need to follow.

Footnotes

Address correspondence to Michael Englegau, 4770 Buford Hwy., Mailstop K-10, Atlanta, GA 30341. E-mail: mxe1{at}cdc.gov.

References

1. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group: Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 346:393–403, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
2. Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S, Laakso M, Louheranta A, Rastas M, Salminen V, Uusitupa M, Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group: Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med 344:1343–1350, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
3. Pan XR, Li GW, Hu YH, Wang JX, Yang WY, An ZX, Hu ZX, Lin J, Xiao JZ, Cao HB, Liu PA, Jiang XG, Jiang YY, Wang JP, Zheng H, Zhang H, Bennett PH, Howard BV: Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance. The Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care 20:537–544, 1997[Abstract]
   
4. Chiasson JL, Josse RG, Gomis R, Hanefeld M, Karasik A, Laakso M, STOP NIDDM Trial Research Group: Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the STOP-NIDDM radomised trial. Lancet 359:2072–77, 2002[Medline]
   
5. De Vegt F, Dekker JM, Jager A, Hienkens E, Kostense PJ, Stehouwer CDA, Nijpels G, Bouter LM, Heine RJ: Relation of impaired fasting and postload glucose with incident type 2 diabetes in a Dutch population: The Hoorn Study. JAMA 285:2109–2113, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Barzilay JI, Spiekerman CF, Kuller LH, Burke GL, Bittner V, Gorrdiener JS, Brancati FL, Orchard TJ, O’Leary DH, Savage PJ: Prevalence of clinical and isolated subclinical cardiovascular disease in older adults with glucose disorders. The Cardiovascular Health Study. Diabetes Care 24:1233–1239, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
7. American Diabetes Association and National Institutes of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases: The prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 25:742–749, 2002[Free Full Text]
   
8. Finish Diabetes Association: Development Programme for the Prevention and Care of Diabetes in Finland 2000–2010. Jyvaskyla, Finland, Finnish Diabetes Association, 2001
   
9. Saydah SH, Holt DB, Harris MI: Projected impact of the results of the Diabetes Prevention Program in the U.S. population. Diabetes Care 25:1940–1945, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
10. Narayan KMV, Imperatore G, Benjamin SM, Engelgau MM: Targeting people with pre-diabetes: lifestyle interventions should also be aimed at people with pre-diabetes. BMJ 325:403–404, 2002[Free Full Text]
    
11. Rolka DB, Narayan KMV, Thompson TJ, Goldman D, Lindenmayer J, Alich K, Bacall D, Benjamin EM, Lamb B, Stuart DO, Engelgau MM: Performance of recommended screening tests for undiagnosed diabetes and dysglycemia. Diabetes Care 24:1899–1903, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
12. Stern MP, Williams K, Haffner SM: Identification of persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: do we need the oral glucose tolerance test? Ann Intern Med 136:575–581, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
13. DPP Research Group: The cost-effectiveness of DPP interventions to delay or prevent type 2 diabetes (Abstract). Diabetes 51(Suppl. 2):A72, 2002
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. W. Lyon, E. T. Larsen, and A. L. Edwards The impact of new guidelines for glucose tolerance testing on clinical practice and laboratory services Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 26, 2004; 171(9): 1067 - 1069. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Primary Primary Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus by Lifestyle Intervention: Implications for Health Policy Ann Intern Med, June 1, 2004; 140(11): 951 - 957. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Colagiuri, Z. Hussain, P. Zimmet, A. Cameron, and J. Shaw Screening for Type 2 Diabetes and Impaired Glucose Metabolism: The Australian experience Diabetes Care, February 1, 2004; 27(2): 367 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Extract 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 Engelgau, M. M Articles by Vinicor, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Engelgau, M. M Articles by Vinicor, F. Social Bookmarking                What's this?