van Valkengoed Irene G M, Vlaar Everlina M A, Nierkens Vera, Middelkoop Barend J C, Stronks Karien
Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Public Health, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Public Health Service, The Hague, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 28;10(8):e0136734. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136734. eCollection 2015.
Direct comparisons of the effect of a glycated haemoglobin measurement or an oral glucose tolerance test on the uptake and yield of screening in people of South Asian origin have not been made. We evaluated this in 18 to 60-year-old South Asian Surinamese.
We invited 3173 South Asian Surinamese for an oral glucose tolerance test between June 18th 2009- December 31st 2009 and 2012 for a glycated hemoglobin measurement between April 19th 2010-November 11th, 2010. Participants were selected from 48 general practices in The Hague, The Netherlands. We used mixed models regression to analyse differences in response and participation between the groups. We described differences in characteristics of participants and calculated the yield as the percentage of all cases identified, if all invitees had been offered screening with the specified method.
The response and participation in the glycated hemoglobin group was higher than in the group offered an oral glucose tolerance test (participation 23.9 vs. 19.3; OR: 1.30, 95%-confidence interval1.01-1.69). After adjustment for age and sex, characteristics of participants were similar for both groups. Overall, glycated hemoglobin identified a similar percentage of type 2 diabetes cases but a higher percentage of prediabetes cases, in the population than the oral glucose tolerance test.
We found that glycated hemoglobin and the oral glucose tolerance test may be equally efficient for identification of type 2 diabetes in populations of South Asian origin. However, for programs aimed at identifying people at high risk of type 2 diabetes (i.e. with prediabetes), the oral glucose tolerance test may be a less efficient choice than glycated hemoglobin.
尚未对糖化血红蛋白测量或口服葡萄糖耐量试验对南亚裔人群筛查接受率和筛查产出的影响进行直接比较。我们在18至60岁的南亚苏里南人当中对此进行了评估。
我们于2009年6月18日至2009年12月31日邀请了3173名南亚苏里南人进行口服葡萄糖耐量试验,并于2010年4月19日至2010年11月11日邀请他们进行糖化血红蛋白测量。参与者从荷兰海牙的48家普通诊所中选取。我们使用混合模型回归分析两组之间在反应和参与方面的差异。我们描述了参与者特征的差异,并计算了如果所有受邀者都接受指定方法的筛查时,所有确诊病例的百分比作为产出率。
糖化血红蛋白组的反应和参与率高于接受口服葡萄糖耐量试验的组(参与率23.9%对19.3%;比值比:1.30,95%置信区间1.01 - 1.69)。在对年龄和性别进行调整后,两组参与者的特征相似。总体而言,在该人群中,糖化血红蛋白识别出的2型糖尿病病例百分比与口服葡萄糖耐量试验相似,但糖尿病前期病例的百分比更高。
我们发现,糖化血红蛋白和口服葡萄糖耐量试验在识别南亚裔人群中的2型糖尿病方面可能同样有效。然而,对于旨在识别2型糖尿病高危人群(即糖尿病前期)的项目而言,口服葡萄糖耐量试验可能是比糖化血红蛋白效率更低的选择。