Christensen J O, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Borch-Johnsen K
Steno Diabetes Center, Niels Steensens Vej 2, 2820, Gentofte, Denmark.
Diabetologia. 2004 Sep;47(9):1566-73. doi: 10.1007/s00125-004-1496-2. Epub 2004 Sep 8.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The yield of screening programmes for Type 2 diabetes in the existing healthcare setting might be lower than anticipated from tests of screening algorithms in data from epidemiological surveys. Our aims were to evaluate the reliability of the algorithms and the effectiveness of a proposed stepwise screening programme for Type 2 diabetes in general practice.
The screening programme had four steps: (i) mail-distributed self-administered risk-chart; (ii) screening tests: random blood glucose (RBG) and HbA(1)c; (iii) diagnostic procedure 1 for fasting blood glucose (FBG) (if RBG >/=5.5 mmol/l or HbA(1)c >/=6.1%); and (iv) OGTT as diagnostic procedure 2 (if 5.6</=FBG<6.1 mmol/l or HbA(1)c >/=6.1%). Abnormalities of glucose metabolism were classified according to the WHO 1999 criteria, based on capillary whole blood. The subjects were all patients between 40 and 69 years of age ( n=60,926) who were registered in 88 general practices and had not been previously diagnosed with diabetes.
A total of 11,263 individuals had a high-risk risk-score and attended the screening consultation (step 1 test-positive). Of these, 30.1% needed diagnostic tests (step 2 test-positive) and 27.2% of these needed an OGTT (step 3 test-positive). The test-positive proportions were equal to the proportions obtained in data from a population-based survey from Step 2 onwards, and the algorithms were thus reliable. The identification rate was only 19% of all prevalent undiagnosed diabetes according to a recently published prevalence estimate. This was due to a large dropout rate among high-risk individuals prior to entry into the programme.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Population-based mail-distributed stepwise screening for Type 2 diabetes in general practice is ineffective, despite reliable screening algorithms, primarily because many high-risk individuals fail to participate.
目的/假设:在现有医疗环境中,2型糖尿病筛查项目的检出率可能低于根据流行病学调查数据进行的筛查算法测试所预期的水平。我们的目的是评估算法的可靠性以及在全科医疗中针对2型糖尿病提出的逐步筛查项目的有效性。
筛查项目有四个步骤:(i)通过邮件分发的自我管理风险图表;(ii)筛查测试:随机血糖(RBG)和糖化血红蛋白(HbA₁c);(iii)空腹血糖(FBG)诊断程序1(如果RBG≥5.5 mmol/L或HbA₁c≥6.1%);以及(iv)口服葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT)作为诊断程序2(如果5.6≤FBG<6.1 mmol/L或HbA₁c≥6.1%)。根据世界卫生组织1999年标准,基于毛细血管全血对糖代谢异常进行分类。研究对象为88家全科诊所登记的、年龄在40至69岁之间(n = 60,926)且既往未被诊断为糖尿病的所有患者。
共有11,263人风险评分高并参加了筛查咨询(第一步检测呈阳性)。其中,30.1%需要诊断测试(第二步检测呈阳性),这些人中27.2%需要进行OGTT(第三步检测呈阳性)。从第二步起,检测呈阳性的比例与基于人群的调查数据中获得的比例相等,因此算法是可靠的。根据最近公布的患病率估计,识别率仅为所有未诊断出的糖尿病患者的19%。这是由于高危个体在进入该项目之前有很大的退出率。
结论/解读:尽管筛查算法可靠,但在全科医疗中基于人群的邮件分发式2型糖尿病逐步筛查是无效的,主要原因是许多高危个体未能参与。