Article Figures & Data
Tables
Characteristic Active Screening Arm
(n = 164)Active Screening Arm with USPSTF Criteria
(n = 104)Standard Practice Arm
(n = 324)N (%) Mean SD N (%) Mean SD N (%) Mean SD Age (years) 63.5 10.28 58.5 6.69 63.3 11.71 BMI (kg/m2) 31.0 7.08 33.9 6.83 29.3 7.08 Morbidly obese (BMI >40) 16 (10) 46.3 5.13 16 (15) 46.3 5.13 30 (9) 44.1 4.24 Obese (BMI 30–40) 60 (37) 34.2 2.69 51 (49) 34.6 2.72 94 (29) 34.2 2.67 Overweight (BMI 25–29) 58 (35) 27.5 1.46 37 (36) 27.6 1.45 106 (33) 27.2 1.39 Healthy weight (BMI 18.5–25) 28 (17) 22.5 2.16 – – – 91 (28) 21.9 2.21 Did not report 2 (1) – – – – – 3 (1) – – Race/Ethnicity African American 12 (7) 9 (9) 27 (8) Caucasian 142 (87) 87 (84) 285 (88) Other/did not teport 10 (6) 8 (8) 12 (4) Sex Female 91 (55) 57 (55) 209 (65) Male 73 (45) 47 (45) 113 (35) Possesses health insurance 155 (95) 97 (94) 302 (93) Screening practices Eligible and screened 164 (100) 104 (100) 73 (23) Eligible but not screened 0 (0) 0 (0) 251 (77) Screening method A1c 164 (100) 5.80 0.51 104 (100) 5.78 0.54 4 (5) 6.08 0.64 Blood glucose 0 (0) 0 (0) 70 (96) 103.11 23.26 Screening outcome Diabetes 16 (10) 6.68 0.19 10 (10) 7.00 0.53 6 (8) Prediabetes 88 (53) 5.93 0.47 52 (50) 5.91 0.19 24 (33) Euglycemic 60 (37) 5.34 0.23 42 (40) 5.33 0.23 43 (59) USPSTF = United States Preventive Services Task Force; BMI = body mass index.
Screening Outcome Screening Practice Active Screening, N (%) Standard Practice, N (%) Diabetes 16 (10) 6 (8) Prediabetes 88 (53) 24 (33) Euglycemic 60 (37) 43 (59) χ2 10.53,df 2,P = 0.005
Additional Files
Supplemental Appendix
Supplemental Appendix
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Supplemental data: Appendix - PDF file
The Article in Brief
Systematic Diabetes Screening Using Point-of-Care A1C Testing Facilitates Identification of Prediabetes
Heather P. Whitley , and colleagues
Background With millions of Americans unknowingly living with chronic high blood sugar, there is a need to more quickly and easily identify and treat patients with unknown hyperglycemia. Standard screening, which typically uses fasting blood glucose measured through a chemistry panel, can be inconvenient, highly variable and can delay care. By contrast, HbA1c testing is durable and more accurately reflects sustained hyperglycemia. This study compares these two approaches for identifying patients with chronic hyperglycemia.
What This Study Found Systematically offered HbA1c point-of-care testing is superior to standard practice, according to study findings. Specifically, standard practice screened only 22 percent of patients, most commonly by blood glucose. Comparing glycemic outcomes, in the standard practice arm, six patients were found to have diabetes and 24 patients were found to have prediabetes. By contrast, point-of-care HbA1c screening identified 104 patients with diabetes and 88 patients with prediabetes.
Implications
- The authors conclude that because point-of-care HbA1c testing effectively identifies individuals early in the course of the disease and allows for immediate assessment, patient education and early management, it is superior for identifying unknown chronic hyperglycemia, particularly prediabetes.