Advertisement
Research Article| Volume 197, 110572, March 2023

Download started.

Ok

Impact of changes in diabetes screening guidelines on testing eligibility and potential yield among adults without diagnosed diabetes in the United States

Published:February 10, 2023DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110572

      Abstract

      Aims

      Recent USPSTF and ADA guidelines expanded criteria of whom to test to identify prediabetes and diabetes. We described which Americans are eligible and report receiving glucose testing by USPSTF 2015 and 2021 as well as ADA 2003 and 2022 recommendations, and performance of each guideline.

      Methods

      We analyzed cross-sectional data from 6,007 non-pregnant U.S. adults without diagnosed diabetes in the 2013–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. We reported proportions of adults who met each guideline’s criteria for glucose testing and reported receiving glucose testing in the past three years, overall and by key population subgroups,. Defining prediabetes (FPG 100–125 mg/dL and/or HbA1c 5.7–6.4 %) or previously undiagnosed diabetes (FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL and/or HbA1c ≥ 6.5 %), we assessed sensitivity and specificity.

      Results

      During 2013–2018, 76.7 million, 90.4 million, 157.7 million, and 169.5 million US adults met eligibility for glucose testing by USPSTF 2015, 2021, and ADA 2003 and 2022 guidelines, respectively. On average, 52 % of adults reported receiving glucose testing within the past 3 years. Likelihood of receiving glucose testing was lower among younger adults, men, Hispanic adults, those with less than high school completion, those living in poverty, and those without health insurance or a usual place of care than their respective counterparts. ADA recommendations were most sensitive (range: 91.0 % to 100.0 %) and least specific (range: 18.3 % to 35.3 %); USPSTF recommendations exhibited lower sensitivity (51.9 % to 66.6 %), but higher specificity (56.6 % to 74.5 %).

      Conclusions

      An additional 12–14 million US adults are eligible for diabetes screening. USPSTF 2021 criteria provide balanced sensitivity and specificity while ADA 2022 criteria maximize sensitivity. Glucose testing does not align with guidelines and disparities remain.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care 2018.

        • Gregg E.W.
        • Cheng Y.J.
        • Srinivasan M.
        • et al.
        Trends in cause-specific mortality among adults with and without diagnosed diabetes in the USA: an epidemiological analysis of linked national survey and vital statistics data.
        Lancet. 2018; 391: 2430-2440
      2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report. 2022. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html (accessed February 24 2022).

        • Gerstein H.C.
        • Santaguida P.
        • Raina P.
        • et al.
        Annual incidence and relative risk of diabetes in people with various categories of dysglycemia: a systematic overview and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
        Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007; 78: 305-312
        • Echouffo-Tcheugui J.B.
        • Selvin E.
        Prediabetes and What It Means: The Epidemiological Evidence.
        Annu Rev Public Health. 2021; 42: 59-77
        • Ali M.K.
        • Bullard K.M.
        • Saydah S.
        • Imperatore G.
        • Gregg E.W.
        Cardiovascular and renal burdens of prediabetes in the USA: analysis of data from serial cross-sectional surveys, 1988–2014.
        Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018; 6: 392-403
        • Cai X.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Li M.
        • et al.
        Association between prediabetes and risk of all cause mortality and cardiovascular disease: updated meta-analysis.
        BMJ. 2020; 370m2297
        • Haw J.
        • Galaviz K.I.
        • Straus A.N.
        • et al.
        Long-term sustainability of diabetes prevention approaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177: 1808-1817
        • Galaviz K.I.
        • Weber M.B.
        • Straus A.
        • Haw J.S.
        • Narayan K.M.V.
        • Ali M.K.
        Global Diabetes Prevention Interventions: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of the Real-World Impact on Incidence, Weight, and Glucose.
        Diabetes Care. 2018; 41: 1526-1534
        • Committee A.D.A.P.P.
        10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022.
        Diabetes Care. 2021; 45: S144-S174
      3. Effect of a long-term behavioural weight loss intervention on nephropathy in overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes: a secondary analysis of the Look AHEAD randomised clinical trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2014; 2(10): 801-9.

        • Ali M.K.
        • Bullard K.M.
        • Gregg E.W.
        • Del Rio C.
        A cascade of care for diabetes in the United States: visualizing the gaps.
        Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161: 681-689
        • Ali M.K.
        • McKeever Bullard K.
        • Imperatore G.
        • et al.
        Reach and Use of Diabetes Prevention Services in the United States, 2016–2017.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2: e193160
        • Echouffo-Tcheugui J.B.
        • Ali M.K.
        • Griffin S.J.
        • Narayan K.M.V.
        Screening for Type 2 Diabetes and Dysglycemia.
        Epidemiol Rev. 2011; 33: 63-87
      4. The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes care 2003; 26(suppl_1): s5-s20.

      5. Committee ADAPP. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022. Diabetes care 2021; 45(Supplement_1): S17-S38.

      6. Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of internal medicine 2008; 148(11): 846-54.

        • Siu A.L.
        Screening for Abnormal Blood Glucose and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation StatementScreening for Abnormal Blood Glucose and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
        Ann Intern Med. 2015; 163: 861-868
      7. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2021; 326(8): 736-43.

        • Tseng E.
        • Greer R.C.
        • O’Rourke P.
        • et al.
        National Survey of Primary Care Physicians’ Knowledge, Practices, and Perceptions of Prediabetes.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2019; 34: 2475-2481
        • Bullard K.M.
        • Ali M.K.
        • Imperatore G.
        • et al.
        Receipt of Glucose Testing and Performance of Two US Diabetes Screening Guidelines, 2007–2012.
        PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0125249
      8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Questionnaires, Datasets, and Related Documentation [survey operations manuals, consent documents, brochures, and interview and exam manuals online]. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes_questionnaires.htm (accessed June 28 2013).

      9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: laboratory protocol [article online]. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2007-2008/lab_methods_07_08.htm (accessed June 28 2013).

        • DeLong E.R.
        • DeLong D.M.
        • Clarke-Pearson D.L.
        Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.
        Biometrics. 1988; 44: 837-845
      10. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2013. Diabetes Care 2013; 36 Suppl 1: S11-66.

        • Selvin E.
        • Wang D.
        • Matsushita K.
        • Grams M.E.
        • Coresh J.
        Prognostic Implications of Single-Sample Confirmatory Testing for Undiagnosed Diabetes: A Prospective Cohort Study.
        Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 156-164
      11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 2015-2016 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Plasma Fasting Glucose. Updated 2020. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2015-2016/GLU_I.htm (accessed June 2 2022).

      12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 2007-2008 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Plasma Fasting Glucose & Insulin. 2010. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/2007-2008/GLU_E.htm (accessed June 2 2022).

      13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 2005-2006 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Plasma Fasting Glucose & Insulin. Updated 2016. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/2005-2006/GLU_D.htm (accessed June 2 2022).

        • Ratner R.E.
        Diabetes management in the age of national health reform.
        Diabetes Care. 2011; 34: 1054-1057
        • Selvin E.
        • Ali M.K.
        Declines in the Incidence of Diabetes in the U.S.-Real Progress or Artifact?.
        Diabetes Care. 2017; 40: 1139-1143
        • Hill-Briggs F.
        • Adler N.E.
        • Berkowitz S.A.
        • et al.
        Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review.
        Diabetes Care. 2020;
        • Harris M.I.
        • Eastman R.C.
        • Cowie C.C.
        • Flegal K.M.
        • Eberhardt M.S.
        Racial and ethnic differences in glycemic control of adults with type 2 diabetes.
        Diabetes Care. 1999; 22: 403-408
        • Winkleby M.A.
        • Robinson T.N.
        • Sundquist J.
        • Kraemer H.C.
        Ethnic variation in cardiovascular disease risk factors among children and young adults: findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994.
        JAMA. 1999; 281: 1006-1013
      14. Butler SM, Sheriff N. How poor communication exacerbates health inequities – and what to do about it. 2021. https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-poor-communication-exacerbates-health-inequities-and-what-to-do-about-it/ (accessed May 3 2022).

        • Cheng Y.J.
        • Kanaya A.M.
        • Araneta M.R.G.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of Diabetes by Race and Ethnicity in the United States, 2011–2016.
        JAMA. 2019; 322: 2389-2398
        • Ali M.K.
        • Narayan K.M.
        Screening for Dysglycemia: Connecting Supply and Demand to Slow Growth in Diabetes Incidence.
        PLoS Med. 2016; 13: e1002084
      15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Independent experts confirm that diabetes prevention model supported by the Affordable Care Act saves money and improves health. 2016. http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2016/03/23/independent-experts-confirm-diabetes-prevention-model-supported-affordable-care-act-saves-money.html (accessed August 31 2017).

        • Konchak J.N.
        • Moran M.R.
        • O’Brien M.J.
        • Kandula N.R.
        • Ackermann R.T.
        The State of Diabetes Prevention Policy in the USA Following the Affordable Care Act.
        Curr Diab Rep. 2016; 16: 1-12