Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 1100–1108 | Cite as

Performance of the 2015 US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Criteria for Prediabetes and Undiagnosed Diabetes

  • Matthew J. O’Brien
  • Kai McKeever Bullard
  • Yan Zhang
  • Edward W. Gregg
  • Mercedes R. Carnethon
  • Namratha R. Kandula
  • Ronald T. Ackermann
Original Research

Abstract

Background

In 2015, The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes (collectively called dysglycemia) among adults aged 40–70 years with overweight or obesity. The recommendation suggests that clinicians consider screening earlier in people who have other diabetes risk factors.

Objective

To compare the performance of limited and expanded screening criteria recommended by the USPSTF for detecting dysglycemia among US adults.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of survey and laboratory data collected from nationally representative samples of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US adult population.

Participants

A total of 3643 adults without diagnosed diabetes who underwent measurement of hemoglobin A1c (A1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-h plasma glucose (2-h PG).

Main Measures

Screening eligibility according to the limited criteria was based on age 40 to 70 years old and overweight/obesity. Screening eligibility according to the expanded criteria was determined by meeting the limited criteria or having ≥ 1 of the following risk factors: family history of diabetes, history of gestational diabetes or polycystic ovarian syndrome, and non-white race/ethnicity. Dysglycemia was defined by A1c ≥ 5.7%, FPG ≥ 100 mg/dL, and/or 2-h PG ≥ 140 mg/dL.

Key results

Among the US adult population without diagnosed diabetes, 49.7% had dysglycemia. Screening based on the limited criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 47.3% (95% CI, 44.7–50.0%) and specificity of 71.4% (95% CI, 67.3–75.2%). The expanded criteria yielded higher sensitivity [76.8% (95% CI, 73.5–79.8%)] and lower specificity [33.8% (95% CI, 30.1–37.7%)]. Point estimates for the sensitivity of the limited criteria were lower in all minority groups and significantly different for Asians compared to non-Hispanic whites [29.9% (95% CI, 23.4–37.2%) vs. 49.8% (95% CI, 45.9–53.7%); P < .001].

Conclusions

Diabetes screening that follows the limited USPSTF criteria will identify approximately half of US adults with dysglycemia. Screening other high-risk subgroups defined in the USPSTF recommendation would improve detection of dysglycemia and may reduce associated racial/ethnic disparities.

KEY WORDS

diabetes screening prediabetes undiagnosed diabetes diabetes dysglycemia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NIDDK and CDC Division of Diabetes Translation funded the diabetes component of the NHANES and have input into the design and conduct of the study, and the collection and management of the data with regard to diabetes-related data. Other than the study authors, the NIDDK and the CDC had no role in the design, analysis, and interpretation of the secondary analysis; preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The CDC reviewed and approved the manuscript before submission. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC or the NIDDK.

Author’s Contributions

K.M.B. had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. M.J.O., K.M.B., Y.Z., E.W.G., and R.T.A designed the study. All authors contributed to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data. M.J.O. drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. Y.Z. and K.M.B. conducted the statistical analysis. K.M.B. provided administrative, technical, or material support and E.W.G. supervised the study.

Funding

The study was supported by grants R21-DK112066, R01-HL093009, UL1-TR001422. There were no commercial sponsors of the study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The National Center for Health Statistics Research Ethics Review Board approved NHANES. All participants gave informed consent.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Menke A, Casagrande S, Geiss L, Cowie CC. Prevalence of and Trends in Diabetes Among Adults in the United States, 1988-2012. JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314(10):1021–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lanting LC, Joung IM, Mackenbach JP, Lamberts SW, Bootsma AH. Ethnic differences in mortality, end-stage complications, and quality of care among diabetic patients: a review. Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2280–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siu AL. Screening for Abnormal Blood Glucose and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Dec 1;163(11):861–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauchner H, Fontanarosa PB, Golub RM. JAMA Welcomes the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26;315(4):351–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Selph S, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Patel H, Chou R. Screening for Abnormal Glucose and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review to Update the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2015.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2017. Diabetes Care. 2017 Jan;40(Suppl 1):S1-S135.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knowler W, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler S, Hamman RF, Lachin J, Walker E, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(6):393–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pan XR, Li G, Hu YH, Wang JX, Yang WY, An ZX, et al. Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance: the Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(4):537–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hämäläinen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(18):1343–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dabelea D, Mayer-Davis EJ, Saydah S, Imperatore G, Linder B, Divers J, et al. Prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents from 2001 to 2009. JAMA. 2014 May 7;311(17):1778–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Atlanta, GA: CDC/National Center for Health Statistics, 2016; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm [accessed February 27, 2018].
  13. 13.
    Johnson CL, Dohrmann SM, Burt VL, Mohadjer LK. National health and nutrition examination survey: sample design, 2011-2014. Vital Health Statistics. 2014 Mar(162):1–33.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Narayan KMV, Boyle JP, Thompson TJ, Sorensen SW, Williamson DF. Lifetime risk for diabetes mellitus in the United States. JAMA. 2003;290(14):1884–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bray GA, Jablonski KA, Fujimoto WY, Barrett-Connor E, Haffner S, Hanson RL, et al. Relation of central adiposity and body mass index to the development of diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87(5):1212–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agardh E, Allebeck P, Hallqvist J, Moradi T, Sidorchuk A. Type 2 diabetes incidence and socio-economic position: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;40(3):804–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization. Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet. 2004 Jan 10;363(9403):157–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2014: Appendix A: How the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grades Its Recommendations. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014; Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/guidelines-recommendations/guide/appendix-a.html [accessed February 27, 2018].
  19. 19.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Grade Definitions, 2016; Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/grade-definitions [accessed February 27, 2018].
  20. 20.
    Siu AL, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman D. Evidence-Based Clinical Prevention in the Era of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: The Role of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2015 Nov 17;314(19):2021–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diabetes Advocacy Alliance. Coalition Letter: Request to release FAQ regarding coverage of preventive services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, 2016; Available from: https://www.aace.com/files/views/072616-tridpts-re-diabetes-screening.pdf [accessed February 27, 2018].
  22. 22.
    Dall TM, Narayan KM, Gillespie KB, Gallo PD, Blanchard TD, Solcan M, et al. Detecting type 2 diabetes and prediabetes among asymptomatic adults in the United States: modeling American Diabetes Association versus US Preventive Services Task Force diabetes screening guidelines. Popul Health Metr. 2014;12:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chung S, Azar KM, Baek M, Lauderdale DS, Palaniappan LP. Reconsidering the age thresholds for type II diabetes screening in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Oct;47(4):375–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Casagrande SS, Cowie CC, Fradkin JE. Utility of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for diabetes screening. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Aug;45(2):167–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bullard KM, Ali MK, Imperatore G, Geiss LS, Saydah SH, Albu JB, et al. Receipt of Glucose Testing and Performance of Two US Diabetes Screening Guidelines, 2007-2012. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0125249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O'Brien MJ, Lee JY, Carnethon MR, Ackermann RT, Vargas MC, Hamilton A, et al. Detecting Dysglycemia Using the 2015 United States Preventive Services Task Force Screening Criteria: A Cohort Analysis of Community Health Center Patients. PLoS Med. 2016 Jul;13(7):e1002074.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hsu WC, Araneta MR, Kanaya AM, Chiang JL, Fujimoto W. BMI cut points to identify at-risk Asian Americans for type 2 diabetes screening. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(1):150–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lipska KJ, Krumholz H, Soones T, Lee SJ. Polypharmacy in the Aging Patient: A Review of Glycemic Control in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes. JAMA. 2016;315(10):1034–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Community Preventive Services Task Force. Diabetes Prevention and Control: Combined Diet & Physical Activity Programs– Economic Evidence Tables. Atlanta, GA 2016; Available from: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/SETcombineddietandpa-econ.pdf [accessed February 27, 2018].
  30. 30.
    Ealovega MW, Tabaei BP, Brandle M, Burke R, Herman WH. Opportunistic screening for diabetes in routine clinical practice. Diabetes Care. 2004 Jan;27(1):9–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, Genuth SM, Lachin JM, Orchard TJ, et al. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 22;353(25):2643–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    DCCT-EDIC Writing Group. Effect of intensive therapy on the microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 2002 May 15;287(19):2563–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wagner EH, Sandhu N, Newton KM, McCulloch DK, Ramsey SD, Grothaus LC. Effect of improved glycemic control on health care costs and utilization. JAMA. 2001;285(2):182–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sussman JB, Kent DM, Nelson JP, Hayward RA. Improving diabetes prevention with benefit based tailored treatment: risk based reanalysis of Diabetes Prevention Program. BMJ. 2015;350:h454.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhuo X, Zhang P, Kahn HS, Gregg EW. Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Thresholds of the Fasting Plasma Glucose Test to Identify the Target Population for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention in Adults Aged≥ 45 Years. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(12):3992–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li G, Zhang P, Wang J, Gregg EW, Yang W, Gong Q, et al. The long-term effect of lifestyle interventions to prevent diabetes in the China Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study: a 20-year follow-up study. Lancet. 2008;371(9626):1783–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Knowler W, Fowler S, Hamman R, Christophi C, Hoffman H, Brenneman A, et al. 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet. 2009;374(9702):1677.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gong Q, Gregg EW, Wang J, An Y, Zhang P, Yang W, et al. Long-term effects of a randomised trial of a 6-year lifestyle intervention in impaired glucose tolerance on diabetes-related microvascular complications: the China Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Outcome Study. Diabetologia. 2011 Feb;54(2):300–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Nov;3(11):866–75.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li G, Zhang P, Wang J, An Y, Gong Q, Gregg EW, et al. Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and diabetes incidence after lifestyle intervention for people with impaired glucose tolerance in the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study: a 23-year follow-up study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(6):474–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Karter AJ, Schillinger D, Adams AS, Moffet HH, Liu J, Adler NE, et al. Elevated rates of diabetes in Pacific Islanders and Asian subgroups: The Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE). Diabetes Care. 2013 Mar;36(3):574–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Selvin E, Wang D, Lee AK, Bergenstal RM, Coresh J. Identifying Trends in Undiagnosed Diabetes in U.S. Adults by Using a Confirmatory Definition: A Cross-sectional Study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(11):769–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sacks DB. A1C versus glucose testing: a comparison. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(2):518–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew J. O’Brien
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kai McKeever Bullard
    • 4
  • Yan Zhang
    • 4
  • Edward W. Gregg
    • 4
  • Mercedes R. Carnethon
    • 3
  • Namratha R. Kandula
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ronald T. Ackermann
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine Northwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Center for Community Health, Institute of Public Health and MedicineNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Preventive MedicineNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Division of Diabetes TranslationCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations