Should we screen for type 2 diabetes? Evaluation against National Screening Committee criteria.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wareham NJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1120142 | biostudies-literature | 2001 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Should we screen for type 2 diabetes? Evaluation against National Screening Committee criteria.
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20010401 7292
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimThe study aim was to evaluate the RSR 3 Screen ICA™ and 2 Screen ICA™ for detection of islet cell autoimmunity in healthy Swedish subjects and patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D).Methods3 Screen is designed for combined detection of autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA), to the islet antigen IA-2 (IA-2A) and to zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8A), while 2 Screen detects GADA and IA-2A. Serum samples from 100 T1D patients at onset and 200 healthy controls were studied.Results3 Screen achieved 93% assay sensitivity and 97.5% specificity, while 2 Screen achieved 91% assay sensitivity and 98.5% specificity. Samples were also tested in assays for individual autoantibodies. There was only one 3 Screen positive healthy control sample (0.5%) that was positive for multiple autoantibodies (IA-2A and ZnT8A). In contrast, most of the 93 3 Screen positive patients were positive for multiple autoantibodies with 72% (67/93) positive for both GADA and IA-2A and 57% (53/93) positive for three autoantibodies (GADA, IA-2A and ZnT8A). Insulin autoantibodies (IAA, measured by radioimmunoassay) were positive in 13 patients and two healthy controls.Conclusion3 Screen achieved high sensitivity and specificity, suitable for islet cell autoimmunity screening in a healthy population. In the case of 3 Screen positivity, further assays for GADA, IA-2A and ZnT8A are required to check for multiple autoantibody positivity, a hallmark for progression to T1D. In addition, testing for IAA in children below two years of age is warranted.
| S-EPMC9085662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims/hypothesisWe aimed to investigate whether diabetes cases detected through screening have better health outcomes than clinically detected cases in a population-based cohort of adults who were eligible to be screened for diabetes at 10 year intervals.MethodsThe Västerbotten Intervention Programme is a community- and individual-based public health programme in Västerbotten County, Sweden. Residents are invited to clinical examinations that include screening for diabetes by OGTTs at age 30, 40, 50 and 60 years (individuals eligible for screening, n = 142,037). Between 1992 and 2013, we identified 1024 screen-detected cases and 8642 clinically detected cases of diabetes using registry data. Clinically detected individuals were either prior screening participants (n = 4506) or people who did not participate in screening (non-participants, n = 4136). Study individuals with diabetes were followed from date of detection until end of follow-up, emigration, death or incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), renal disease or retinopathy event, and compared using Cox proportional hazard regression adjusted for calendar time, age at detection, year of detection, sex and socioeconomic status.ResultsThe average age at diabetes diagnosis was 4.6 years lower for screen-detected individuals compared with clinically detected individuals. Overall, those who were clinically detected had worse health outcomes than those who were screen-detected (HR for all-cause mortality 2.07 [95% CI 1.63, 2.62]). Compared with screen-detected study individuals, all-cause mortality was higher for clinically detected individuals who were screening non-participants (HR 2.31 [95% CI 1.82, 2.94]) than for those clinically detected who were prior screening participants (HR 1.70 [95% CI 1.32, 2.18]). Estimates followed a similar pattern for CVD, renal disease and retinopathy.Conclusions/interpretationIndividuals with screen-detected diabetes were diagnosed earlier and appeared to fare better than those who were clinically detected with regard to all-cause mortality, CVD, renal disease and retinopathy. How much of these associations can be explained by earlier treatment because of screening rather than healthy user bias, lead time bias and length time bias warrants further investigation.
| S-EPMC6086324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of overweight children and childhood obesity has led to early development of obesity-related diseases, including diabetes. Screening tests for type 2 diabetes in children indicate overweight as a major risk factor. Three overweight screening criteria have been considered: body mass index (BMI) >85th percentile (overweight 1, OW1), weight for height >85th percentile (OW2), and weight >120% of ideal for height (OW3). This study was conducted to evaluate the agreement in these screening criteria and the impact of increased use of screening methods.MethodsData were obtained from 965 Korean adolescents (521 boys and 444 girls). The subjects were classified into overweight and normal weight groups by the three above criteria. The agreement between criteria was evaluated using Cohen's kappa value. Furthermore, we studied the relationships between the criteria and parameters of height, weight, BMI, and z score, based on the 2007 Korean growth chart.ResultsTotals of 188, 139, and 115 adolescents were classified as OW1, OW2, and OW3, respectively. The kappa values were 0.798, 0.710, and 0.891 for OW1 and OW2, OW1 and OW3, and OW2 and OW3, respectively. Weight, weight-z, BMI, and BMI-z were greater among subjects in all overweight groups compared to the normal weight group. However, the heights of the subjects did not differ between the three groups.ConclusionActive assessment of overweight status using OW1 could be improved by including more adolescents and focusing on the variability of individual growth and disease risk, even though substantial agreement was observed among the three overweight screening criteria.
| S-EPMC8526295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAn International Expert Committee (IEC) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) proposed diagnostic criteria for diabetes and pre-diabetes based on A1C levels. We hypothesized that screening for diabetes and pre-diabetes with A1C measurements would differ from using oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT).Research design and methodsWe compared pre-diabetes, dysglycemia (diabetes or pre-diabetes), and diabetes identified by the proposed criteria (A1C ? 6.5% for diabetes and 6.0-6.4% [IEC] or 5.7-6.4% [ADA] for high risk/pre-diabetes) with standard OGTT diagnoses in three datasets. Non-Hispanic white or black adults without known diabetes who had A1C and 75-g OGTT measurements were included from the prospective Screening for Impaired Glucose Tolerance study (n = 1,581), and from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III (n = 2014), and NHANES 2005-2006 (n = 1,111).ResultsOGTTs revealed pre-diabetes in 35.8% and diabetes in 5.2% of combined study subjects. A1C provided receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas for diabetes of 0.79-0.83, but ROC curve areas were ? 0.70 for dysglycemia or pre-diabetes. The proposed criteria missed 70% of individuals with diabetes, 71-84% with dysglycemia, and 82-94% with pre-diabetes. Compared with the IEC criteria, the ADA criteria for pre-diabetes resulted in fewer false-negative and more false-positive result. There were also racial differences, with false-positive results being more common in black subjects and false-negative results being more common in white subjects. With use of NHANES 2005-2006 data, ?5.9 million non-Hispanic U.S. adults with unrecognized diabetes and 43-52 million with pre-diabetes would be missed by screening with A1C. CONCLUSIONS The proposed A1C diagnostic criteria are insensitive and racially discrepant for screening, missing most Americans with undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes.
| S-EPMC2945158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveUse of Carpenter-Coustan compared with National Diabetes Data Group criteria increases the number of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by 30-50%, but whether treatment of this milder GDM reduces adverse outcomes is unknown. We explored the effects of the diagnostic criteria used on the benefits of GDM treatment.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial for treatment of mild GDM diagnosed using Carpenter-Coustan criteria. We evaluated the effect of treatment within two mutually exclusive diagnostic groups: 1) women who met the stricter National Diabetes Data Group as well as Carpenter-Coustan criteria (National Diabetes Data Group), and 2) those diagnosed by Carpenter-Coustan but not meeting National Diabetes Data Group criteria (Carpenter-Coustan only). Maternal outcomes examined were pregnancy-induced hypertension, shoulder dystocia, maternal weight gain, and cesarean delivery. Neonatal outcomes were large for gestational age, macrosomia (greater than 4,000 g), fat mass, small for gestational age, and a composite outcome of perinatal death, birth injury, hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and hyperinsulinemia. Analysis of variance or the Breslow-Day test, as appropriate, was used to test for the interaction between diagnostic criteria and GDM treatment on the outcomes of interest.ResultsOf 958 patients, 560 (58.5%) met National Diabetes Data Group criteria and 398 (41.5%) met Carpenter-Coustan only. Compared with untreated women, the direction of treatment effect did not differ by diagnostic criteria used and was consistent with the original trial. The P value for interaction between diagnostic criteria and treatment status was not significant for any outcome.ConclusionThe overall beneficial treatment effect on pregnancy-induced hypertension, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, and macrosomia was seen in patients diagnosed by the higher National Diabetes Data Group and by the lower thresholds of the Carpenter-Coustan criteria.
| S-EPMC4840065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We previously reported that sugar levels in the silkworm hemolymph, i.e., blood, increase immediately (within 1 h) after intake of a high-glucose diet, and that the administration of human insulin decreases elevated hemolymph sugar levels in silkworms. In this hyperglycemic silkworm model, however, administration of pioglitazone or metformin, drugs used clinically for the treatment of type II diabetes, have no effect. Therefore, here we established a silkworm model of type II diabetes for the evaluation of anti-diabetic drugs such as pioglitazone and metformin. Silkworms fed a high-glucose diet over a long time-period (18 h) exhibited a hyperlipidemic phenotype. In these hyperlipidemic silkworms, phosphorylation of JNK, a stress-responsive protein kinase, was enhanced in the fat body, an organ that functionally resembles the mammalian liver and adipose tissue. Fat bodies isolated from hyperlipidemic silkworms exhibited decreased sensitivity to human insulin. The hyperlipidemic silkworms have impaired glucose tolerance, characterized by high fasting hemolymph sugar levels and higher hemolymph sugar levels in a glucose tolerance test. Administration of pioglitazone or metformin improved the glucose tolerance of the hyperlipidemic silkworms. These findings suggest that the hyperlipidemic silkworms are useful for evaluating the hypoglycemic activities of candidate drugs against type II diabetes.
| S-EPMC4448660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Undiagnosed and untreated tyrosinemia type 1 (TT1) individuals carry a significant risk for developing liver fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Elevated succinylacetone (SA) is pathognomonic for TT1 and therefore often used as marker for TT1 newborn screening (NBS). While SA was long considered to be elevated in every TT1 patient, here we present a recent false-negative SA TT1 screen. A nine-year-old boy presented with HCC in a cirrhotic liver. Additional tests for the underlying cause unexpectedly revealed TT1. Nine years prior, the patient was screened for TT1 via SA NBS with a negative result: SA 1.08 µmol/L, NBS cut-off 1.20 µmol/L. To our knowledge, this report is the first to describe a false-negative result from the TT1 NBS using SA. False-negative TT1 NBS results may be caused by milder TT1 variants with lower SA excretion. Such patients are more likely to be missed in NBS programs and can be asymptomatic for years. Based on our case, we advise TT1 to be considered in patients with otherwise unexplained liver pathology, including fibrosis, cirrhosis and HCC, despite a previous negative TT1 NBS status. Moreover, because the NBS SA concentration of this patient fell below the Dutch cut-off value (1.20 µmol/L at that time), as well as below the range of cut-off values used in other countries (1.29-10 µmol/L), it is likely that false-negative screening results for TT1 may also be occurring internationally. This underscores the need to re-evaluate TT1 SA NBS programs.
| S-EPMC10744279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) reviews evidence about existing or potential population screening programmes using rapid review products called evidence summaries. We provide a case report as an example of how rapid reviews are developed within the UK NSC's process, consider how the quality of rapid reviews should be assessed and ask whether the rapid review was an appropriate tool to inform the UK NSC's decision-making process. METHODS:We present the rapid review approach taken by the commissioner and the reviewers to develop an evidence summary for vasa praevia (VP), which the UK NSC reappraised as part of its 3-yearly cycle for conditions where screening is currently not recommended. We apply the AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal checklist for systematic reviews, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and a published checklist of items to consider with a rapid review approach. As UK NSC evidence summaries do not include meta-analyses, any related AMSTAR 2 or PRISMA checklist items were considered inapplicable. RESULTS:The evidence summary was available within the required timelines and highlighted little change from the previous review in terms of key evidence gaps relating to the epidemiology of VP, the screening test and the management pathway. Therefore, the UK NSC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a change in its previous recommendation against screening. The evidence summary scored moderately against the applicable AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA checklist items. Against the published checklist of items to consider with a rapid review approach, the evidence summary performed well. CONCLUSIONS:In this case report, the use of a rapid review as part of the UK NSC's process enabled a pragmatic approach to assessing the overall volume, quality and direction of literature on key questions relating to the viability of a population screening programme for VP. Based on our assessments of this single evidence summary, systematic review quality appraisal tools may undervalue rapid reviews. The validity of the methods used in this case report, as well as the wider generalisability of our insights relating to rapid review practice, reporting and quality assessment, requires analysis of a larger sample of rapid reviews.
| S-EPMC6935491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe describe the identification and management of general population screen-detected type 1 diabetes (T1D) and share learnings for best practice.Research design and methodsChildren diagnosed with T1D through a general population screening initiative, the EarLy Surveillance for Autoimmune diabetes (ELSA) study, were reviewed and described.Parents provided written, informed consent for inclusion in the case series.Results14 children with insulin requiring (stage 3) T1D are described. These cases offer unique insights into the features of screen-detected T1D. T1D is identified sooner through screening programs, characterized by absent/short symptom duration, median presenting glycated hemoglobin 6.6% (49 mmol/mol) and insulin requirements<0.5 units/kg/day. ELSA identified four children at stage 3 and another 4 progressed within 4 months of ELSA completion, including two single seropositive children. Six children developed stage 3 T1D prior to ELSA completion, including two children (14%, n=2/14) with diabetic ketoacidosis prior to confirmed antibody status.ConclusionsThere are three main learnings from this case series. First, T1D identified through screening is at an earlier stage of its natural history and requires personalized insulin regimens with lower total daily insulin doses. Second, single autoantibody seropositivity can rapidly progress to stage 3. Finally, insulin requirement can manifest at any stage of the T1D screening pathway, and therefore early education around symptom recognition is essential for families participating in screening programs.
| S-EPMC11429353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus, a metabolic disorder characterised by hyperglycaemia and associated with a heavy burden of microvascular and macrovascular complications, frequently remains undiagnosed. Screening of apparently healthy individuals may lead to early detection and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and may prevent or delay the development of related complications.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception. The date of the last search was May 2019 for all databases. We applied no language restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials involving adults and children without known diabetes mellitus, conducted over at least three months, that assessed the effect of diabetes screening (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) compared to no diabetes screening.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential relevance and reviewed the full-texts of potentially relevant studies, extracted data, and carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe screened 4651 titles and abstracts identified by the search and assessed 92 full-texts/records for inclusion. We included one cluster-randomised trial, the ADDITION-Cambridge study, which involved 20,184 participants from 33 general practices in Eastern England and assessed the effects of inviting versus not inviting high-risk individuals to screening for diabetes. The diabetes risk score was used to identify high-risk individuals; it comprised variables relating to age, sex, body mass index, and the use of prescribed steroid and anti-hypertensive medication. Twenty-seven practices were randomised to the screening group (11,737 participants actually attending screening) and 5 practices to the no-screening group (4137 participants). In both groups, 36% of participants were women; the average age of participants was 58.2 years in the screening group and 57.9 years in the no-screening group. Almost half of participants in both groups were on antihypertensive medication. The findings from the first phase of this study indicate that screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes did not show a clear difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.25, low-certainty evidence). Screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus showed an HR of 1.26, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.12 (low-certainty evidence) for diabetes-related mortality (based on whether diabetes was reported as a cause of death on the death certificate). Diabetes-related morbidity and health-related quality of life were only reported in a subsample and did not show a substantial difference between the screening intervention and control. The included study did not report on adverse events, incidence of type 2 diabetes, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and socioeconomic effects.Authors' conclusionsWe are uncertain about the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes on all-cause mortality and diabetes-related mortality. Evidence was available from one study only. We are therefore unable to draw any firm conclusions relating to the health outcomes of early type 2 diabetes mellitus screening. Furthermore, the included study did not assess all of the outcomes prespecified in the review (diabetes-related morbidity, incidence of type 2 diabetes, health-related quality of life, adverse events, socioeconomic effects).
| S-EPMC7259754 | biostudies-literature