Premium
Glucose challenge test screening for prediabetes and early diabetes
Author(s) -
Jackson S. L.,
Safo S. E.,
Staimez L. R.,
Olson D. E.,
Narayan K. M. V.,
Long Q.,
Lipscomb J.,
Rhee M. K.,
Wilson P. W. F.,
Tomolo A. M.,
Phillips L. S.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
diabetic medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.474
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1464-5491
pISSN - 0742-3071
DOI - 10.1111/dme.13270
Subject(s) - medicine , prediabetes , diabetes mellitus , receiver operating characteristic , glucose tolerance test , impaired glucose tolerance , impaired fasting glucose , area under the curve , population , glucose test , prospective cohort study , type 2 diabetes , endocrinology , insulin resistance , environmental health
Aims To test the hypothesis that a 50‐g oral glucose challenge test with 1‐h glucose measurement would have superior performance compared with other opportunistic screening methods. Methods In this prospective study in a Veterans Health Administration primary care clinic, the following test performances, measured by area under receiver‐operating characteristic curves, were compared: 50‐g oral glucose challenge test; random glucose; and HbA 1c level, using a 75‐g oral glucose tolerance test as the ‘gold standard’. Results The study population was comprised of 1535 people (mean age 56 years, BMI 30.3 kg/m 2 , 94% men, 74% black). By oral glucose tolerance test criteria, diabetes was present in 10% and high‐risk prediabetes was present in 22% of participants. The plasma glucose challenge test provided area under receiver‐operating characteristic curves of 0.85 (95% CI 0.78–0.91) to detect diabetes and 0.76 (95% CI 0.72–0.80) to detect high‐risk dysglycaemia (diabetes or high‐risk prediabetes), while area under receiver‐operating characteristic curves for the capillary glucose challenge test were 0.82 (95% CI 0.75–0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.69–0.77) for diabetes and high‐risk dysglycaemia, respectively. Random glucose performed less well [plasma: 0.76 (95% CI 0.69–0.82) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.62–0.71), respectively; capillary: 0.72 (95% CI 0.65–0.80) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.59–0.68), respectively], and HbA 1c performed even less well [0.67 (95% CI 0.57–0.76) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.58–0.68), respectively]. The cost of identifying one case of high‐risk dysglycaemia with a plasma glucose challenge test would be $42 from a Veterans Health Administration perspective, and $55 from a US Medicare perspective. Conclusions Glucose challenge test screening, followed, if abnormal, by an oral glucose tolerance test, would be convenient and more accurate than other opportunistic tests. Use of glucose challenge test screening could improve management by permitting earlier therapy.