对新近确诊患有肺结核的乌干达成年人进行两种糖尿病确诊试验的诊断准确性。

IF 3.8 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease Pub Date : 2023-12-21 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20499361231216799
Davis Kibirige, Stella Zawedde-Muyanja, Irene Andia-Biraro, Ronald Olum, Susan Adakun, Christine Sekaggya-Wiltshire, Ivan Kimuli
{"title":"对新近确诊患有肺结核的乌干达成年人进行两种糖尿病确诊试验的诊断准确性。","authors":"Davis Kibirige, Stella Zawedde-Muyanja, Irene Andia-Biraro, Ronald Olum, Susan Adakun, Christine Sekaggya-Wiltshire, Ivan Kimuli","doi":"10.1177/20499361231216799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The optimal confirmatory tests for diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with tuberculosis (TB) vary across populations. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two confirmatory tests for DM against the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as the reference test in adult Ugandans with recently diagnosed TB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 232 adult participants receiving TB treatment underwent initial screening for DM with random blood glucose (RBG) measurement. Participants with a RBG level ⩾6.1 mmol/l received additional screening with fasting blood glucose (FBG), laboratory-measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and an OGTT. Using the latter as the gold standard and reference test, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory-measured HbA1c and FBG.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 232 participants initially screened for DM using RBG measurement, 117 participants (50.4%) had RBG level ⩾6.1 mmol/l and were scheduled to return for additional blood glucose testing. Of these, 75 (64.1%) participants returned for FBG and HbA1c measurements. A diagnosis of DM was made in 32 participants, corresponding to a prevalence of 13.8% [95% CI 9.9-18.9].The areas under the curve (AUC) for FBG and laboratory-measured HbA1c were 0.69 [95% CI 0.47-0.90] and 0.65 [95% CI 0.43-0.87], respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of a FBG level of ⩾7 mmol/l were 57.1% [95% CI 18.4-90.1] and 74.6% [95% CI 62.5-84.5], respectively, whereas the sensitivity and specificity for laboratory-measured HbA1c of ⩾6.5 mmol/l (48 mmol/mol) were 14.3% [95% CI 0.40-57.9] and 95.3% (86.9-99.0%), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FBG may be better than laboratory-measured HbA1c in confirming DM in adult Ugandans with recently diagnosed TB. However, because of the small study sample size, larger studies evaluating the diagnostic utility of these diabetes screening tests in adult Ugandans with TB are needed to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":46154,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease","volume":"10 ","pages":"20499361231216799"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10748612/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of two confirmatory tests for diabetes mellitus in adult Ugandans with recently diagnosed tuberculosis.\",\"authors\":\"Davis Kibirige, Stella Zawedde-Muyanja, Irene Andia-Biraro, Ronald Olum, Susan Adakun, Christine Sekaggya-Wiltshire, Ivan Kimuli\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20499361231216799\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The optimal confirmatory tests for diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with tuberculosis (TB) vary across populations. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two confirmatory tests for DM against the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as the reference test in adult Ugandans with recently diagnosed TB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 232 adult participants receiving TB treatment underwent initial screening for DM with random blood glucose (RBG) measurement. Participants with a RBG level ⩾6.1 mmol/l received additional screening with fasting blood glucose (FBG), laboratory-measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and an OGTT. Using the latter as the gold standard and reference test, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory-measured HbA1c and FBG.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 232 participants initially screened for DM using RBG measurement, 117 participants (50.4%) had RBG level ⩾6.1 mmol/l and were scheduled to return for additional blood glucose testing. Of these, 75 (64.1%) participants returned for FBG and HbA1c measurements. A diagnosis of DM was made in 32 participants, corresponding to a prevalence of 13.8% [95% CI 9.9-18.9].The areas under the curve (AUC) for FBG and laboratory-measured HbA1c were 0.69 [95% CI 0.47-0.90] and 0.65 [95% CI 0.43-0.87], respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of a FBG level of ⩾7 mmol/l were 57.1% [95% CI 18.4-90.1] and 74.6% [95% CI 62.5-84.5], respectively, whereas the sensitivity and specificity for laboratory-measured HbA1c of ⩾6.5 mmol/l (48 mmol/mol) were 14.3% [95% CI 0.40-57.9] and 95.3% (86.9-99.0%), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FBG may be better than laboratory-measured HbA1c in confirming DM in adult Ugandans with recently diagnosed TB. However, because of the small study sample size, larger studies evaluating the diagnostic utility of these diabetes screening tests in adult Ugandans with TB are needed to confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"20499361231216799\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10748612/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361231216799\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361231216799","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:结核病(TB)患者糖尿病(DM)的最佳确诊试验因人群而异。本研究旨在评估两种糖尿病确诊试验的性能,并将口服葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT)作为参考试验,对新近确诊为肺结核的乌干达成年患者进行评估:共有 232 名接受肺结核治疗的成年参与者接受了随机血糖 (RBG) 测量的糖尿病初筛。RBG 水平⩾6.1 mmol/l 的参与者接受了空腹血糖 (FBG)、实验室测量的糖化血红蛋白 (HbA1c) 和 OGTT 的额外筛查。以后者作为金标准和参考测试,我们评估了实验室测定的糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)和空腹血糖(FBG)的诊断准确性:结果:在使用 RBG 测量方法初步筛查出糖尿病的 232 名参与者中,有 117 人(50.4%)的 RBG 水平⩾6.1 mmol/l,并被安排再次接受血糖检测。其中,75 名参与者(64.1%)返回进行 FBG 和 HbA1c 测量。32名参与者被诊断为糖尿病,患病率为13.8% [95% CI 9.9-18.9]。FBG和实验室测定的HbA1c的曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.69 [95% CI 0.47-0.90]和0.65 [95% CI 0.43-0.87]。FBG水平⩾7毫摩尔/升的敏感性和特异性分别为57.1% [95% CI 18.4-90.1]和74.6% [95% CI 62.5-84.5],而实验室测量的HbA1c水平⩾6.5毫摩尔/升(48毫摩尔/摩尔)的敏感性和特异性分别为14.3% [95% CI 0.40-57.9]和95.3% (86.9-99.0%):结论:FBG 可能比实验室测量的 HbA1c 更适合用于确认新近确诊为肺结核的乌干达成年人是否患有糖尿病。然而,由于研究样本量较小,因此需要进行更大规模的研究,评估这些糖尿病筛查测试在乌干达成年肺结核患者中的诊断效用,以证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diagnostic accuracy of two confirmatory tests for diabetes mellitus in adult Ugandans with recently diagnosed tuberculosis.

Objective: The optimal confirmatory tests for diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with tuberculosis (TB) vary across populations. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two confirmatory tests for DM against the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as the reference test in adult Ugandans with recently diagnosed TB.

Methods: A total of 232 adult participants receiving TB treatment underwent initial screening for DM with random blood glucose (RBG) measurement. Participants with a RBG level ⩾6.1 mmol/l received additional screening with fasting blood glucose (FBG), laboratory-measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and an OGTT. Using the latter as the gold standard and reference test, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory-measured HbA1c and FBG.

Results: Of the 232 participants initially screened for DM using RBG measurement, 117 participants (50.4%) had RBG level ⩾6.1 mmol/l and were scheduled to return for additional blood glucose testing. Of these, 75 (64.1%) participants returned for FBG and HbA1c measurements. A diagnosis of DM was made in 32 participants, corresponding to a prevalence of 13.8% [95% CI 9.9-18.9].The areas under the curve (AUC) for FBG and laboratory-measured HbA1c were 0.69 [95% CI 0.47-0.90] and 0.65 [95% CI 0.43-0.87], respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of a FBG level of ⩾7 mmol/l were 57.1% [95% CI 18.4-90.1] and 74.6% [95% CI 62.5-84.5], respectively, whereas the sensitivity and specificity for laboratory-measured HbA1c of ⩾6.5 mmol/l (48 mmol/mol) were 14.3% [95% CI 0.40-57.9] and 95.3% (86.9-99.0%), respectively.

Conclusion: FBG may be better than laboratory-measured HbA1c in confirming DM in adult Ugandans with recently diagnosed TB. However, because of the small study sample size, larger studies evaluating the diagnostic utility of these diabetes screening tests in adult Ugandans with TB are needed to confirm these findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
64
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Social disparities on PrEP use and awareness among sexual and gender minorities using smartphones in India. Challenges in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by L. braziliensis in four travelers: a case series. Fungal Infections, Treatment and Antifungal Resistance: The Sub-Saharan African Context. Polio: Background and perspective on how international travel can be made safe against polio. Emerging trends in fungal endocarditis: clinical complexity, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic implications - a case series and literature review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1