Riemer A Been, Ellen Noordstar, Marga A G Helmink, Thomas T van Sloten, Wendela L de Ranitz-Greven, André P van Beek, Sebastiaan T Houweling, Peter R van Dijk, Jan Westerink
{"title":"在没有已知糖尿病的心血管疾病高危人群中，HbA1c 和空腹血浆葡萄糖水平同样与心血管疾病发病风险有关。","authors":"Riemer A Been, Ellen Noordstar, Marga A G Helmink, Thomas T van Sloten, Wendela L de Ranitz-Greven, André P van Beek, Sebastiaan T Houweling, Peter R van Dijk, Jan Westerink","doi":"10.1515/dx-2024-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Whether screen-detected T2DM, based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or on HbA<sub>1c</sub>, are associated with different risks of incident CVD in high-risk populations and which one is preferable for diabetes screening in these populations, remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 8,274 high-risk CVD participants were included from the UCC-SMART cohort. Participants were divided into groups based on prior T2DM diagnosis, and combinations of elevated/non-elevated FPG and HbA<sub>1c</sub> (cut-offs at 7 mmol/L and 48 mmol/mol, respectively): Group 0: known T2DM; group 1: elevated FPG/HbA<sub>1c</sub>; group 2: elevated FPG, non-elevated HbA<sub>1c</sub>; group 3: non-elevated FPG, elevated HbA<sub>1c</sub>; group 1 + 2: elevated FPG, regardless of HbA<sub>1c</sub>; group 1 + 3: elevated HbA<sub>1c</sub>, regardless of FPG; and group 4 (reference), non-elevated FPG/HbA<sub>1c</sub>.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During a median follow-up of 6.3 years (IQR 3.3-9.8), 712 cardiovascular events occurred. Compared to the reference (group 4), group 0 was at increased risk (HR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.16-1.68), but group 1 (HR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.62-2.18), 2 (HR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.84-1.67), 3 (HR 0.61; 95 % CI 0.15-2.44), 1 + 2 (HR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.86-1.59) and 1 + 3 (HR 1.01; 95 % CI 0.57-1.79) were not. However, spline interpolation showed a linearly increasing risk with increasing HbA<sub>1c</sub>/FPG, but did not allow for identification of other cut-off points.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on current cut-offs, FPG and HbA<sub>1c</sub> at screening were equally related to incident CVD in high-risk populations without known T2DM. Hence, neither FPG, nor HbA<sub>1c</sub>, is preferential for diabetes screening in this population with respect to risk of incident CVD.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"312-320"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"HbA<sub>1c</sub> and fasting plasma glucose levels are equally related to incident cardiovascular risk in a high CVD risk population without known diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Riemer A Been, Ellen Noordstar, Marga A G Helmink, Thomas T van Sloten, Wendela L de Ranitz-Greven, André P van Beek, Sebastiaan T Houweling, Peter R van Dijk, Jan Westerink\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/dx-2024-0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Whether screen-detected T2DM, based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or on HbA<sub>1c</sub>, are associated with different risks of incident CVD in high-risk populations and which one is preferable for diabetes screening in these populations, remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 8,274 high-risk CVD participants were included from the UCC-SMART cohort. Participants were divided into groups based on prior T2DM diagnosis, and combinations of elevated/non-elevated FPG and HbA<sub>1c</sub> (cut-offs at 7 mmol/L and 48 mmol/mol, respectively): Group 0: known T2DM; group 1: elevated FPG/HbA<sub>1c</sub>; group 2: elevated FPG, non-elevated HbA<sub>1c</sub>; group 3: non-elevated FPG, elevated HbA<sub>1c</sub>; group 1 + 2: elevated FPG, regardless of HbA<sub>1c</sub>; group 1 + 3: elevated HbA<sub>1c</sub>, regardless of FPG; and group 4 (reference), non-elevated FPG/HbA<sub>1c</sub>.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During a median follow-up of 6.3 years (IQR 3.3-9.8), 712 cardiovascular events occurred. Compared to the reference (group 4), group 0 was at increased risk (HR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.16-1.68), but group 1 (HR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.62-2.18), 2 (HR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.84-1.67), 3 (HR 0.61; 95 % CI 0.15-2.44), 1 + 2 (HR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.86-1.59) and 1 + 3 (HR 1.01; 95 % CI 0.57-1.79) were not. However, spline interpolation showed a linearly increasing risk with increasing HbA<sub>1c</sub>/FPG, but did not allow for identification of other cut-off points.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on current cut-offs, FPG and HbA<sub>1c</sub> at screening were equally related to incident CVD in high-risk populations without known T2DM. Hence, neither FPG, nor HbA<sub>1c</sub>, is preferential for diabetes screening in this population with respect to risk of incident CVD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnosis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"312-320\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnosis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2024-0017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2024-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels are equally related to incident cardiovascular risk in a high CVD risk population without known diabetes.
Objectives: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Whether screen-detected T2DM, based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or on HbA1c, are associated with different risks of incident CVD in high-risk populations and which one is preferable for diabetes screening in these populations, remains unclear.
Methods: A total of 8,274 high-risk CVD participants were included from the UCC-SMART cohort. Participants were divided into groups based on prior T2DM diagnosis, and combinations of elevated/non-elevated FPG and HbA1c (cut-offs at 7 mmol/L and 48 mmol/mol, respectively): Group 0: known T2DM; group 1: elevated FPG/HbA1c; group 2: elevated FPG, non-elevated HbA1c; group 3: non-elevated FPG, elevated HbA1c; group 1 + 2: elevated FPG, regardless of HbA1c; group 1 + 3: elevated HbA1c, regardless of FPG; and group 4 (reference), non-elevated FPG/HbA1c.
Results: During a median follow-up of 6.3 years (IQR 3.3-9.8), 712 cardiovascular events occurred. Compared to the reference (group 4), group 0 was at increased risk (HR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.16-1.68), but group 1 (HR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.62-2.18), 2 (HR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.84-1.67), 3 (HR 0.61; 95 % CI 0.15-2.44), 1 + 2 (HR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.86-1.59) and 1 + 3 (HR 1.01; 95 % CI 0.57-1.79) were not. However, spline interpolation showed a linearly increasing risk with increasing HbA1c/FPG, but did not allow for identification of other cut-off points.
Conclusions: Based on current cut-offs, FPG and HbA1c at screening were equally related to incident CVD in high-risk populations without known T2DM. Hence, neither FPG, nor HbA1c, is preferential for diabetes screening in this population with respect to risk of incident CVD.
期刊介绍：
Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality. Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
