心衰患者糖尿病诊断筛查方法的比较

IF 1 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Diabetes epidemiology and management Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.deman.2022.100109
Yuta Ishikawa , Emma M. Laing , Alex K. Anderson , Donglan Zhang , Joseph M. Kindler , Rupal Trivedi-Kapoor , Elisabeth L. P. Sattler
{"title":"心衰患者糖尿病诊断筛查方法的比较","authors":"Yuta Ishikawa ,&nbsp;Emma M. Laing ,&nbsp;Alex K. Anderson ,&nbsp;Donglan Zhang ,&nbsp;Joseph M. Kindler ,&nbsp;Rupal Trivedi-Kapoor ,&nbsp;Elisabeth L. P. Sattler","doi":"10.1016/j.deman.2022.100109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>The objective of the study was to compare screening performances of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and two-hour plasma glucose (2hPG) in heart failure (HF) patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We included 237 HF patients aged &gt;20 years without history of diabetes, using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (2005–2016). American Diabetes Association diabetes screening criteria were used: (1) HbA1c ≥6.5%, (2) FPG ≥126 mg/dL, and (3) 2hPG ≥200 mg/dL. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for HbA1c and FPG were examined against reference methods.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><em>N</em> = 50 patients (20.5%) met at least 1 of 3 clinical criteria for diabetes. 2hPG alone identified 70.5% of patients, whereas HbA1c alone identified only 27.0% of patients. Sensitivity and specificity using a HbA1c cutoff at ≥6.5% were 24.4% and 97.6%, respectively. The Youden's J statistic for HbA1c was maximized at 6.1%. The area under the ROC curve of HbA1c against 2hPG was significantly lower compared to FPG (0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.88; 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.94, respectively; <em>p</em> = 0.04).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Blood glucose criteria are more sensitive than HbA1c when screening HF patients for diabetes. Future studies should test performance of a HbA1c cutoff at 6.1% when FPG or 2hPG cannot be completed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72796,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes epidemiology and management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of diagnostic screening methods for diabetes in patients with heart failure\",\"authors\":\"Yuta Ishikawa ,&nbsp;Emma M. Laing ,&nbsp;Alex K. Anderson ,&nbsp;Donglan Zhang ,&nbsp;Joseph M. Kindler ,&nbsp;Rupal Trivedi-Kapoor ,&nbsp;Elisabeth L. P. Sattler\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.deman.2022.100109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>The objective of the study was to compare screening performances of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and two-hour plasma glucose (2hPG) in heart failure (HF) patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We included 237 HF patients aged &gt;20 years without history of diabetes, using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (2005–2016). American Diabetes Association diabetes screening criteria were used: (1) HbA1c ≥6.5%, (2) FPG ≥126 mg/dL, and (3) 2hPG ≥200 mg/dL. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for HbA1c and FPG were examined against reference methods.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><em>N</em> = 50 patients (20.5%) met at least 1 of 3 clinical criteria for diabetes. 2hPG alone identified 70.5% of patients, whereas HbA1c alone identified only 27.0% of patients. Sensitivity and specificity using a HbA1c cutoff at ≥6.5% were 24.4% and 97.6%, respectively. The Youden's J statistic for HbA1c was maximized at 6.1%. The area under the ROC curve of HbA1c against 2hPG was significantly lower compared to FPG (0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.88; 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.94, respectively; <em>p</em> = 0.04).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Blood glucose criteria are more sensitive than HbA1c when screening HF patients for diabetes. Future studies should test performance of a HbA1c cutoff at 6.1% when FPG or 2hPG cannot be completed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes epidemiology and management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes epidemiology and management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666970622000592\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes epidemiology and management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666970622000592","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是比较心力衰竭(HF)患者HbA1c、空腹血糖(FPG)和两小时血糖(2hPG)的筛查性能。方法采用2005-2016年全国健康与营养调查(National Health and Nutrition Survey)资料,选取年龄20岁、无糖尿病史的HF患者237例。采用美国糖尿病协会糖尿病筛查标准:(1)HbA1c≥6.5%,(2)FPG≥126 mg/dL, (3) 2hPG≥200 mg/dL。对照参考方法检验HbA1c和FPG的敏感性、特异性、预测值和受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线。结果50例(20.5%)患者符合糖尿病3项临床标准中的至少1项。单独使用2hPG识别70.5%的患者,而单独使用HbA1c仅识别27.0%的患者。HbA1c临界值≥6.5%的敏感性和特异性分别为24.4%和97.6%。HbA1c的Youden's J统计值达到6.1%。与FPG相比,HbA1c与2hPG的ROC曲线下面积显著降低(0.79,95% CI 0.70-0.88;0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.94;p = 0.04)。结论在筛选心衰患者糖尿病时,血糖指标比HbA1c指标更敏感。未来的研究应该测试当FPG或2hPG不能完成时HbA1c截止值为6.1%的性能。
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
Comparison of diagnostic screening methods for diabetes in patients with heart failure

Aims

The objective of the study was to compare screening performances of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and two-hour plasma glucose (2hPG) in heart failure (HF) patients.

Methods

We included 237 HF patients aged >20 years without history of diabetes, using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (2005–2016). American Diabetes Association diabetes screening criteria were used: (1) HbA1c ≥6.5%, (2) FPG ≥126 mg/dL, and (3) 2hPG ≥200 mg/dL. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for HbA1c and FPG were examined against reference methods.

Results

N = 50 patients (20.5%) met at least 1 of 3 clinical criteria for diabetes. 2hPG alone identified 70.5% of patients, whereas HbA1c alone identified only 27.0% of patients. Sensitivity and specificity using a HbA1c cutoff at ≥6.5% were 24.4% and 97.6%, respectively. The Youden's J statistic for HbA1c was maximized at 6.1%. The area under the ROC curve of HbA1c against 2hPG was significantly lower compared to FPG (0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.88; 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.94, respectively; p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Blood glucose criteria are more sensitive than HbA1c when screening HF patients for diabetes. Future studies should test performance of a HbA1c cutoff at 6.1% when FPG or 2hPG cannot be completed.

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
Diabetes epidemiology and management
Diabetes epidemiology and management Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Public Health and Health Policy
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 days
期刊最新文献
Assessment of vitamin D status in obese and non-obese patients: A case-control study The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diabetes-related mortality Diabetes in pregnancy: Anxious minds precarious times Primary care monitoring of HbA1c tests in type 2 diabetic patients in Northern France and impact of the successive COVID-19 pandemic containments Evaluation of a Support Tool for Diabetes Control in primary care – A Qualitative study with primary care staff
×
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