Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for frequency of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) screening remain unclear, with proposed screening intervals typically based on expert opinion. This study aims to demonstrate that HbA1c screening intervals may differ substantially when considering individual risk for diabetes. METHODS: This was a multi-institutional retrospective open cohort study. Data were collected between April 1999 to March 2014 from one urban and one rural cohort in Japan. After categorization by age, we stratified individuals based on cardiovascular disease risk (Framingham 10-year cardiovascular risk score) and body mass index (BMI). We adapted a signal-to-noise method for distinguishing true HbA1c change from measurement error by constructing a linear random effect model to calculate signal and noise of HbA1c. Screening interval for HbA1c was defined as informative when the signal-to-noise ratio exceeded 1. RESULTS: Among 96,456 healthy adults, 46,284 (48.0%) were male; age (range) and mean HbA1c (SD) were 48 (30-74) years old and 5.4 (0.4)%, respectively. As risk increased among those 30-44 years old, HbA1c screening intervals for detecting Type 2 DM consistently decreased: from 10.5 (BMI <18.5) to 2.4 (BMI > 30) years, and from 8.0 (Framingham Risk Score <10%) to 2.0 (Framingham Risk Score ≥20%) years. This trend was consistent in other age and risk groups as well; among obese 30-44 year olds, we found substantially shorter intervals compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: HbA1c screening intervals for identification of DM vary substantially by risk factors. Risk stratification should be applied when deciding an optimal HbA1c screening interval in the general population to minimize overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Original publication

DOI

10.1186/s12902-016-0139-1

Type

Journal article

Journal

BMC Endocr Disord

Publication Date

22/11/2016

Volume

16

Keywords

Accuracy of testing, Diabetes mellitus, Screening interval, Adult, Aged, Body Mass Index, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Hemoglobin A, Glycosylated, Humans, Japan, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Signal-To-Noise Ratio, Time Factors