Affiliation:
1. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE—This study evaluates the impact of lowering the diagnostic threshold for impaired fasting glucose (IFG) from 6.1 to 5.6 mmol/l as proposed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) on the prevalence of the condition, classification of individuals, and risk definition.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 1,285 employees of the Italian Telephone Company aged 35–59 years without known diabetes underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). BMI, serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured. Medication use was recorded.
RESULTS—With the new ADA criterion, the proportion of people diagnosed with IFG increased from 3.2 to 9.7%. The newly proposed IFG category identified 41% of all subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) compared with 16.2% identified with the use of the World Health Organization criterion for IFG; the improvement in accuracy has been achieved at the cost of classifying more previously “normal” subjects as having IFG (from 2.3 to 7.3%). Both IFG and IGT were associated with an unfavorable risk profile for diabetes and cardiovascular disease, with a higher estimated risk for IGT than IFG.
CONCLUSIONS—Even with the revised diagnostic criterion, IFG and IGT identify distinct groups that have a different background risk. The cost/benefit of preventive measures tested in people with IGT may not apply to the new IFG category.
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Subject
Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism,Internal Medicine
Reference19 articles.
1. Genuth S, Alberti KG, Bennett P, Buse J, Defronzo R, Kahn R, Kitzmiller J, Knowler WC, Lebovitz H, Lernmark A, Nathan D, Palmer J, Rizza R, Saudek C, Shaw J, Steffes M, Stern M, Tuomilehto J, Zimmet P, the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus: Follow-up report on the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 26: 3160–3167, 2003
2. Davidson MB, Landsman PB, Alexander CM: Lowering the criterion for impaired fasting glucose will not provide clinical benefits. Diabetes Care 26: 3229–3330, 2003
3. Schriger DL, Lorber B: Lowering the cut point for impaired fasting glucose: where is the evidence? Where is the logic? Diabetes Care 27: 592–601, 2004
4. World Health Organization. Definition, Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus and its Complications. Report of a WHO Consultation. Part 1: Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Geneva, World Health Org., 1999
5. Unwin N, Shaw J, Zimmet P, Alberti KGGM: Impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glycaemia: the current status on definition and intervention. Diabet Med 19: 708–723, 2002
Cited by
38 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献