Predictive Performance of Glycated Hemoglobin for Incident Diabetes Compared with Glucose Tolerance Test According to Central Obesity.

Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-12-23 DOI:10.3803/EnM.2020.798
Suji Yoo, Jaehoon Jung, Hosu Kim, Kyoung Young Kim, Soo Kyoung Kim, Jungwha Jung, Jong Ryeal Hahm, Jong Ha Baek
{"title":"Predictive Performance of Glycated Hemoglobin for Incident Diabetes Compared with Glucose Tolerance Test According to Central Obesity.","authors":"Suji Yoo,&nbsp;Jaehoon Jung,&nbsp;Hosu Kim,&nbsp;Kyoung Young Kim,&nbsp;Soo Kyoung Kim,&nbsp;Jungwha Jung,&nbsp;Jong Ryeal Hahm,&nbsp;Jong Ha Baek","doi":"10.3803/EnM.2020.798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To examine whether glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) test would be a suitable screening tool for detecting high-risk subjects for diabetes compared to oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) according to accompanied central obesity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective population-based cohort study, both OGTT and HbA1c tests were performed and continued every 2 years up to 12 years among individuals with non-diabetic state at baseline (aged 40 to 69 years, n=7,512). Incident diabetes was established by a doctor, HbA1c ≥6.5%, and/or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥126 mg/dL, and/or 2-hour postprandial glucose (2hPG) level based on OGTT ≥200 mg/dL. Discriminative capacities of high HbA1c (≥5.7%) versus high 2hPG (≥140 mg/dL) for predicting incident diabetes were compared using Cox-proportional hazard regression and C-index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the median 11.5 years of follow-up period, 1,341 (17.6%) developed diabetes corresponding to an incidence of 22.1 per 1,000 person-years. Isolated high 2hPG was associated with higher risk for incident diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 4.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.56 to 5.17) than isolated high HbA1c (HR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.40 to 3.26; P<0.05). In addition, high 2hPG provided better discriminatory capacity than high HbA1c (C-index 0.79 vs. 0.75, P<0.05). Meanwhile, in subjects with central obesity, the HR (3.95 [95% CI, 3.01 to 5.18] vs. 2.82 [95% CI, 2.30 to 3.46]) and discriminatory capacity of incident diabetes (C-index 0.75 vs. 0.75) between two subgroups became comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Even though the overall inferior predictive capacity of HbA1c test than OGTT, HbA1c test might plays a complementary role in identifying high risk for diabetes especially in subjects with central obesity with increased sensitivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":520607,"journal":{"name":"Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea)","volume":" ","pages":"873-881"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/89/78/enm-2020-798.PMC7803600.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3803/EnM.2020.798","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To examine whether glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) test would be a suitable screening tool for detecting high-risk subjects for diabetes compared to oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) according to accompanied central obesity.

Methods: In this prospective population-based cohort study, both OGTT and HbA1c tests were performed and continued every 2 years up to 12 years among individuals with non-diabetic state at baseline (aged 40 to 69 years, n=7,512). Incident diabetes was established by a doctor, HbA1c ≥6.5%, and/or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥126 mg/dL, and/or 2-hour postprandial glucose (2hPG) level based on OGTT ≥200 mg/dL. Discriminative capacities of high HbA1c (≥5.7%) versus high 2hPG (≥140 mg/dL) for predicting incident diabetes were compared using Cox-proportional hazard regression and C-index.

Results: During the median 11.5 years of follow-up period, 1,341 (17.6%) developed diabetes corresponding to an incidence of 22.1 per 1,000 person-years. Isolated high 2hPG was associated with higher risk for incident diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 4.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.56 to 5.17) than isolated high HbA1c (HR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.40 to 3.26; P<0.05). In addition, high 2hPG provided better discriminatory capacity than high HbA1c (C-index 0.79 vs. 0.75, P<0.05). Meanwhile, in subjects with central obesity, the HR (3.95 [95% CI, 3.01 to 5.18] vs. 2.82 [95% CI, 2.30 to 3.46]) and discriminatory capacity of incident diabetes (C-index 0.75 vs. 0.75) between two subgroups became comparable.

Conclusion: Even though the overall inferior predictive capacity of HbA1c test than OGTT, HbA1c test might plays a complementary role in identifying high risk for diabetes especially in subjects with central obesity with increased sensitivity.

Abstract Image

根据中心性肥胖,糖化血红蛋白与葡萄糖耐量试验对糖尿病的预测性能比较。
背景:探讨糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)检测与口服糖耐量试验(OGTT)相比,是否适合作为检测糖尿病高危人群的筛查工具。方法:在这项基于人群的前瞻性队列研究中,在基线时非糖尿病状态的个体(40 - 69岁,n= 7512)中,每2年进行OGTT和HbA1c检测,并持续检测至12年。由医生确诊为偶发性糖尿病,HbA1c≥6.5%,和/或空腹血糖(FPG)≥126 mg/dL,和/或餐后2小时血糖(2hPG)水平≥200 mg/dL。采用Cox-proportional hazard regression和C-index比较高HbA1c(≥5.7%)和高2hPG(≥140 mg/dL)预测糖尿病发生的判别能力。结果:在中位11.5年的随访期间,1,341例(17.6%)发生糖尿病,相当于每1000人年22.1例的发病率。孤立的高2hPG与较高的糖尿病发生风险相关(危险比[HR], 4.29;95%可信区间[CI], 3.56 ~ 5.17)高于单独的高HbA1c (HR, 2.79;95% CI, 2.40 ~ 3.26;结论:尽管HbA1c检测的总体预测能力低于OGTT,但HbA1c检测可能在识别糖尿病高危人群中发挥补充作用,特别是对中心性肥胖患者,其敏感性增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信