A risk scores for predicting prevalence of diabetes in the LAO population
- 47 Downloads
To develop risk scores for predicting the prevalence of diabetes in the Lao population. This was a cross-sectional study of both men and women (age 30 to 70 years) living in rural villages of the Vientiane municipality in the Lao PDR. Multiple logistic regressions with backward stepwise selection were used; the diabetes risk score was derived from the β-coefficient. Performance of the score was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the sensitivity, the specificity, and the positive predictive value for the specified cut-off value. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was 7%. The factors included in the predictive in model were 17 (40 to 70 years of age) + 14 (high waist circumference) + 11 (hypertension) + 7 (family history of diabetes). A cut-off point of risk scores of 29.5 out of 49 produced the optimal sum, leading to a sensitivity of 0.75, a specificity of 0.55, a positive predictive value of 17.8%, and an AUC of 0.70. Data suggested that the combination of age, waist circumference, hypertension, and family history of diabetes could be utilized to identify Lao individuals at high risk of undiagnosed diabetes. The generalizability for other Lao population needs further investigation.
KeywordsRisk assessment model Diabetes prevalence Risk score Undiagnosed diabetes Lao diabetes prevalence
This study was funded by the 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund and Research grant of Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the National Institute of Public Health National Ethics Committee for Health Research (NECHR), the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The clinical trial number is NCT03311802 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
- 1.International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes Atlas. 6th ed. Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2013.Google Scholar
- 5.Gillies CL, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, et al. Pharmacological and lifestyle interventions to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in people with impaired glucose tolerance: systematic review and meta-analysis. Vol 3342007.Google Scholar
- 8.Misra A, Chowbey P, Makkar BM, Vikram NK, Wasir JS, Chadha D, et al. Consensus statement for diagnosis of obesity, abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndrome for Asian Indians and recommendations for physical activity, medical and surgical management. J Assoc Physicians India. 2009;57:163–70.Google Scholar
- 11.Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redon J, Zanchetti A, Böhm M, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2013;34(28):2159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.T TJ V, Eriksson J. Epidemiology of type 2 diabetes in Europids. In: Alberti K, Zimmet P, DeFronzo R, Keen H, editors. In International textbook of diabetes mellitus. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1997. p. 125–42.Google Scholar
- 26.Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, Eberhardt MS, Goldstein DE, Little RR, et al. Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in U.S. adults. The third National Health and nutrition examination survey, 1988-1994. Diabetes Care. Apr 1998;21(4):518–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Borch-Johnsen K, Andrew N, Beverley B, Svend L, Glucose tolerance and mortality: comparison of WHO and American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria The DECODE study group. European Diabetes Epidemiology Group Diabetes Epidemiology: collaborative analysis of diagnostic criteria in Europe. Lancet. 1999;354(9179):617–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar