Cargando…

Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and increasing in prevalence. It is possible to prevent or delay T2D using lifestyle intervention programmes. Entry to these programmes is usually determined by a measure of glycaemia in the ‘intermediate’ range. This paper investigated the relationship be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rodgers, Lauren R., Hill, Anita V., Dennis, John M., Craig, Zoe, May, Benedict, Hattersley, Andrew T., McDonald, Timothy J., Andrews, Rob C., Jones, Angus, Shields, Beverley M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8377980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34412655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02054-w
_version_ 1783740750010253312
author Rodgers, Lauren R.
Hill, Anita V.
Dennis, John M.
Craig, Zoe
May, Benedict
Hattersley, Andrew T.
McDonald, Timothy J.
Andrews, Rob C.
Jones, Angus
Shields, Beverley M.
author_facet Rodgers, Lauren R.
Hill, Anita V.
Dennis, John M.
Craig, Zoe
May, Benedict
Hattersley, Andrew T.
McDonald, Timothy J.
Andrews, Rob C.
Jones, Angus
Shields, Beverley M.
author_sort Rodgers, Lauren R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and increasing in prevalence. It is possible to prevent or delay T2D using lifestyle intervention programmes. Entry to these programmes is usually determined by a measure of glycaemia in the ‘intermediate’ range. This paper investigated the relationship between HbA1c and future diabetes risk and determined the impact of varying thresholds to identify those at high risk of developing T2D. METHODS: We studied 4227 participants without diabetes aged ≥ 40 years recruited to the Exeter 10,000 population cohort in South West England. HbA1c was measured at study recruitment with repeat HbA1c available as part of usual care. Absolute risk of developing diabetes within 5 years, defined by HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), according to baseline HbA1c, was assessed by a flexible parametric survival model. RESULTS: The overall absolute 5-year risk (95% CI) of developing T2D in the cohort was 4.2% (3.6, 4.8%). This rose to 7.1% (6.1, 8.2%) in the 56% (n = 2358/4224) of participants classified ‘high-risk’ with HbA1c ≥ 39 mmol/mol (5.7%; ADA criteria). Under IEC criteria, HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), 22% (n = 929/4277) of the cohort was classified high-risk with 5-year risk 14.9% (12.6, 17.2%). Those with the highest HbA1c values (44–47 mmol/mol [6.2–6.4%]) had much higher 5-year risk, 26.4% (22.0, 30.5%) compared with 2.1% (1.5, 2.6%) for 39–41 mmol/mol (5.7–5.9%) and 7.0% (5.4, 8.6%) for 42–43 mmol/mol (6.0–6.1%). Changing the entry criterion to prevention programmes from 39 to 42 mmol/mol (5.7–6.0%) reduced the proportion classified high-risk by 61%, and increased the positive predictive value (PPV) from 5.8 to 12.4% with negligible impact on the negative predictive value (NPV), 99.6% to 99.1%. Increasing the threshold further, to 44 mmol/mol (6.2%), reduced those classified high-risk by 59%, and markedly increased the PPV from 12.4 to 23.2% and had little impact on the NPV (99.1% to 98.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of people are identified as high-risk using current thresholds. Increasing the risk threshold markedly reduces the number of people that would be classified as high-risk and entered into prevention programmes, although this must be balanced against cases missed. Raising the entry threshold would allow limited intervention opportunities to be focused on those most likely to develop T2D. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-021-02054-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8377980
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83779802021-08-23 Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study Rodgers, Lauren R. Hill, Anita V. Dennis, John M. Craig, Zoe May, Benedict Hattersley, Andrew T. McDonald, Timothy J. Andrews, Rob C. Jones, Angus Shields, Beverley M. BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and increasing in prevalence. It is possible to prevent or delay T2D using lifestyle intervention programmes. Entry to these programmes is usually determined by a measure of glycaemia in the ‘intermediate’ range. This paper investigated the relationship between HbA1c and future diabetes risk and determined the impact of varying thresholds to identify those at high risk of developing T2D. METHODS: We studied 4227 participants without diabetes aged ≥ 40 years recruited to the Exeter 10,000 population cohort in South West England. HbA1c was measured at study recruitment with repeat HbA1c available as part of usual care. Absolute risk of developing diabetes within 5 years, defined by HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), according to baseline HbA1c, was assessed by a flexible parametric survival model. RESULTS: The overall absolute 5-year risk (95% CI) of developing T2D in the cohort was 4.2% (3.6, 4.8%). This rose to 7.1% (6.1, 8.2%) in the 56% (n = 2358/4224) of participants classified ‘high-risk’ with HbA1c ≥ 39 mmol/mol (5.7%; ADA criteria). Under IEC criteria, HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), 22% (n = 929/4277) of the cohort was classified high-risk with 5-year risk 14.9% (12.6, 17.2%). Those with the highest HbA1c values (44–47 mmol/mol [6.2–6.4%]) had much higher 5-year risk, 26.4% (22.0, 30.5%) compared with 2.1% (1.5, 2.6%) for 39–41 mmol/mol (5.7–5.9%) and 7.0% (5.4, 8.6%) for 42–43 mmol/mol (6.0–6.1%). Changing the entry criterion to prevention programmes from 39 to 42 mmol/mol (5.7–6.0%) reduced the proportion classified high-risk by 61%, and increased the positive predictive value (PPV) from 5.8 to 12.4% with negligible impact on the negative predictive value (NPV), 99.6% to 99.1%. Increasing the threshold further, to 44 mmol/mol (6.2%), reduced those classified high-risk by 59%, and markedly increased the PPV from 12.4 to 23.2% and had little impact on the NPV (99.1% to 98.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of people are identified as high-risk using current thresholds. Increasing the risk threshold markedly reduces the number of people that would be classified as high-risk and entered into prevention programmes, although this must be balanced against cases missed. Raising the entry threshold would allow limited intervention opportunities to be focused on those most likely to develop T2D. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-021-02054-w. BioMed Central 2021-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8377980/ /pubmed/34412655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02054-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rodgers, Lauren R.
Hill, Anita V.
Dennis, John M.
Craig, Zoe
May, Benedict
Hattersley, Andrew T.
McDonald, Timothy J.
Andrews, Rob C.
Jones, Angus
Shields, Beverley M.
Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study
title Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study
title_full Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study
title_fullStr Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study
title_short Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study
title_sort choice of hba1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8377980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34412655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02054-w
work_keys_str_mv AT rodgerslaurenr choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT hillanitav choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT dennisjohnm choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT craigzoe choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT maybenedict choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT hattersleyandrewt choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT mcdonaldtimothyj choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT andrewsrobc choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT jonesangus choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy
AT shieldsbeverleym choiceofhba1cthresholdforidentifyingindividualsathighriskoftype2diabetesandimplicationsfordiabetespreventionprogrammesacohortstudy