HbA_(1c)诊断2型糖尿病特性观察及在空腹血糖正常人群中的分布特征研究

目的观察糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)诊断2型糖尿病(T2DM)的特点及其在空腹血糖(FPG)正常者中的分布情况。方法同时测定729例FPG正常者尿酸(UA)、甘油三酯(TG)、总胆固醇(TC)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C);用免疫抑制比浊法测定247例接受口服葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT)者(包括T2DM 164例、糖耐量受损41例、空腹血糖受损18例、糖耐量正常者24例)的HbA1c,以OGTT和临床诊断结果作为标准,绘制HbA1c和FPG的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,确定HbA1c诊断T2DM的切点,通过对比分析观察不同性别及同性别不同年龄组中HbA1c的分布情况。结果免疫抑制比浊法测定HbA1c诊断T2DM的切点为6.36%,诊断灵敏度为86.50%、特异性为90.60%、阳性预测值为94.63%、阴性预测值为76.50%、曲线下面积为0.944[95%可信区间(CI):0.917~0.971],FPG7.0 mmol/L时诊断糖尿病的灵敏度为85.90%、特异性为93.80%、曲线下的面积为0.957[95%CI:0.932~0.981]。FPG正常者中女性HbA1c、HDL-C水平明显高于男性(P=0.000),男性血红蛋白(Hb)、FPG、UA、TG水平高于女性(P值分别为0.000、0.020、0.000、0.000)。随着年龄的增加,男、女性HbA1c、FPG、TC和LDL-C均有增高的趋势;特别是在60岁以后,女性HbA1c升高更高明显;但HDL-C在男性中有上升的趋势,在女性中有下降的趋势。结论免疫抑制比浊法测定HbA1c诊断T2DM的切点为6.36%,随着年龄的增加要定期测定HbA1c,以达到预防糖尿病的目的。     

Combined use of fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin A1c in a stepwise fashion to detect undiagnosed diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common and serious condition related with considerable morbidity. Screening for DM is one strategy for reducing this burden. In Japan National Diabetes Screening Program (JNDSP) guideline, the combined use of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in a stepwise fashion has been recommended to identify the group of people needing life-style counseling or medical care. However, the efficacy of this program has not been fully evaluated, as an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is not mandatory in the guideline. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the screening test scenario, in which an OGTT would be applied to people needing life-style counseling or medical care on this guideline: FPG 110-125 mg/dl and HbA1c over 5.5%. Subjects were 1,726 inhabitants without a previous history of DM in the Funagata study, which is a population-based survey conducted in Yamagata prefecture to clarify the risk factors, related conditions, and consequences of DM. DM was diagnosed according to the 1999 World Health Organization criteria. The prevalence of undiagnosed DM was 6.6%. The tested screening scenario gave a sensitivity of 55.3%, a specificity of 98.4%, a positive predictive value of 70.8%, and a negative predictive value of 96.9% for undiagnosed DM. In conclusion, the screening test scenario, in which an OGTT would be followed by the combined use of FPG and HbA1c in a stepwise fashion according to the JNDSP guideline, was not effective in identifying people with undiagnosed DM.     

Screening for type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose metabolism: the Australian experience

OBJECTIVE: To assess the Australian protocol for identifying undiagnosed type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose metabolism. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Australian screening protocol recommends a stepped approach to detecting undiagnosed type 2 diabetes based on assessment of risk status, measurement of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in individuals at risk, and further testing according to FPG. The performance of and variations to this protocol were assessed in a population-based sample of 10,508 Australians. RESULTS: The protocol had a sensitivity of 79.9%, specificity of 79.9%, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.7% for detecting undiagnosed type 2 diabetes and sensitivity of 51.9% and specificity of 86.7% for detecting impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG). To achieve these diagnostic rates, 20.7% of the Australian adult population would require an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Increasing the FPG cut point to 6.1 mmol/l (110 mg/dl) or using HbA(1c) instead of FPG to determine the need for an OGTT in people with risk factors reduced sensitivity, increased specificity and PPV, and reduced the proportion requiring an OGTT. However, each of these protocol variations substantially reduced the detection of IGT or IFG. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian screening protocol identified one new case of diabetes for every 32 people screened, with 4 of 10 people screened requiring FPG measurement and 1 in 5 requiring an OGTT. In addition, 1 in 11 people screened had IGT or IFG. Including HbA(1c) measurement substantially reduced both the number requiring an OGTT and the detection of IGT or IFG.     

The usage of fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin for the identification of unknown type 2 diabetes in high risk patients with morbid obesity

Background: In spite of increased vigilance of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (DM2), the prevalence of unknown DM2 in subjects with morbid obesity is not known.

Aim: To assess the prevalence of undiagnosed DM2 and compare the performance of glycated A1c (HbA1c) and fasting glucose (FG) for the diagnosis of DM2 and prediabetes (preDM) in patients with morbid obesity.

Patients and methods: We measured fasting glucose and HbA1c in 537 consecutive patients with morbid obesity without previously known DM2.

Results: A total of 49 (9%) patients with morbid obesity had unknown DM2 out of which 16 (33%) fulfilled both the criteria for HbA1c and FG. Out of 284 (53%) subjects with preDM, 133 (47%) fulfilled both the criteria for HbA1c and FG. Measurements of agreement for FG and HbA1c were moderate for DM2 (κ?=?0.461, p?<?.001) and fair for preDM (κ?=?0.317, p?<?.001). Areas under the curve for FG and HbA1c in predicting unknown DM2 were 0.970 (95% CI 0.942, 0.998) and 0.894 (95% CI 0.837, 0.951) respectively. The optimal thresholds to identify unknown DM2 were FG ≥6.6?mmol/L and HbA1c ≥ 6.1% (43?mmol/mol).

Conclusions: The prevalence of DM2 remains high and both FG and HbA1c identify patients with unknown DM2. FG was slightly superior to HbA1c in predicting and separating patients with unknown DM2 from patients without DM2. We suggest that an FG ≥6.6?mmol/L or an HbA1c ≥6.1% (43?mmol/mol) may be used as primary cut points for the identification of unknown DM2 among patients with morbid obesity.     

Macrovascular risk and diagnostic criteria for type 2 diabetes: implications for the use of FPG and HbA(1c) for cost-effective screening

OBJECTIVE: The use of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level > or =7.0 mmol/l leads to underdiagnosis of type 2 diabetes compared with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The OGTT is of limited use for population screening. Most of the increase in cardiovascular risk in relation to increasing blood glucose occurs before the threshold at which the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of HbA(1c) and FPG as predictors of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk and, accordingly, to develop a rational approach to screening for abnormalities of glucose tolerance. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: OGTT and measurement of HbA(1c) and FPG levels were performed in 505 subjects screened for type 2 diabetes. Anthropomorphic measurements were obtained. A cardiovascular risk factor questionnaire was completed. RESULTS: The subjects were aged 19-88 years (mean 53.8). The incidence of type 2 diabetes was 10.4% based on the OGTT and 4% based on an FPG level > or =7.0 mmol/l. Using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), HbA(1c) of <4.7 and > or =6.2% predicted with certainty the absence or presence of type 2 diabetes as defined by the OGTT. The corresponding cutoffs were <5.0 and > or =6.8% for HbA(1c) (DCA2000 HPLC device; Bayer Diagnostics, Mulgrave, Australia) and <4.7 and > or =6.4 mmol/l for FPG. However, 75-85% of subjects in each case had intermediate values, which were therefore nondiagnostic. Cardiovascular risk increased at least 2.2 times at an HbA(1c) level > or =6.2% (by HPLC), 1.8-2.2 times at an HbA(1c) level of 5.6-6.1% (by HPLC), 2 times at an FPG level > or =6.4 mmol/l, and 1.7-1.9 times at an FPG level of 5.6-6.3 mmol/l. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of FPG and HbA(1c) levels will diagnose or exclude type 2 diabetes with certainty in a minority (15%) of people. There is a continuous relationship between FPG and HbA(1c) and cardiovascular risk. Accordingly, we propose that there is a rational basis for using either FPG and HbA(1c) for purposes of screening and assigning risk. Individuals with an HbA(1c) level of 5.6-6.1% and an FPG level of 5.6-6.3 mmol/l are at greatest risk for cardiovascular disease and should be targeted for further evaluation. An algorithm outlining a cost-effective approach is presented.     

HbA1c对糖调节受损和2型糖尿病的诊断价值

摘要：目的：评估糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）不同cut off值诊断2型糖尿病（T2DM）的效能,初步探讨美国糖尿病协会（ADA）推荐的HbA1c诊断T2DM及T2DM前期标准对中国人的适用性。 方法：招募接受口服葡萄糖耐量（OGTT）试验且试验前未诊治为T2DM的志愿者338例,用高效液相色谱法检测HbA1c;以WHO标准诊断糖调节受损（IGR）、糖耐量正常和T2DM;用受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线分析不同 cut off值HbA1c诊断IGR和T2DM的效能。 结果：HbA1c在诊断T2DM时,ROC曲线下面积（AUC^ROC）为0.954,最佳cut off值为6.0%,敏感性为92.5%,特异性为86.0%;当HbA1c为6.5%时,敏感性为64.8%,特异性为96.7%;当HbA1c为5.6%时,诊断T2DM阴性预测值为100.0%;HbA1c诊断IGR的AUC^ROC为0.653。 结论: HbA1c用于IGR的诊断效能不高;HbA1c诊断T2DM最佳cut off值为6.0%,此界值诊断敏感性较FPG高,但特异性较差;ADA推荐用于T2DM诊断的cut off值6.5%主要考虑到诊断的特异性,该诊断标准适用于中国人群。     

糖化血红蛋白对糖尿病的诊断价值分析

目的探讨糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）在糖尿病（DM）诊断中的应用价值。方法 286例健康人和680例DM患者均行口服葡萄糖耐量试验（OGTT）,用特定蛋白分析仪检测HbA1c水平,用BS-420生化分析仪测定血糖,对结果进行分析。结果从健康组到DM组之间的HbA1c的变化关系可看出：DM组患者空腹血糖（FPG）、餐后2h血糖（2hPG）及HbA1c均明显高于健康组（均P〈0.01）,以HbA1c≥6.5%作为DM诊断临界值,其诊断灵敏度为99.18%,诊断特异性为94.45%,均优于以FPG≥7.0mmol/L作为诊断临界值的诊断灵敏度（76.43%）和诊断特异性（89.82%）。结论 HbA1c的值为6.5%时用于诊断DM,与FPG≥7.0mmol/L时联合应用可增加诊断DM的能力。     

How valid is fasting plasma glucose as a parameter of glycemic control in non-insulin-using patients with type 2 diabetes?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of fasting blood glucose as a parameter for glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients not using insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In 1,020 type 2 diabetic patients treated with diet or oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), measurements of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c were taken. In 617 patients, the measurement could be repeated after 3 months. Cross-sectional correlation coefficients were calculated for the association between HbA1c and FPG. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC)-curve analyses were applied to examine the performance of FPG as a diagnostic test for HbA1c. Longitudinally, the change in FPG was compared with the change in HbA1c, with both correlation measures and ROC curve analyses. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients between HbA1c and FPG and between FPG change and HbA1c change were 0.77 and 0.65, respectively. ROC curve analysis showed that HbA1c is difficult to predict from FPG values: 66% of the patients with good HbA1c (< 7.0%) were identified as such by FPG values < 7.8 mmol/l. As a test for HbA1c change, FPG change performed moderately: the highest combined values of sensitivity and specificity (87.7 and 57%, respectively) were reached at a cutoff point of zero in the range of FPG change values. CONCLUSIONS: FPG and HbA1c values that do not correspond are not rare in type 2 diabetic patients on diet or OHA treatment. HbA1c is difficult to predict from FPG values, and even more difficult is the prediction of HbA1c changes from FPG changes.     

HbA1c measurement improves the detection of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals with nondiagnostic levels of fasting plasma glucose: the Early Diabetes Intervention Program (EDIP)

OBJECTIVE: Whereas new diagnostic criteria based on a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of > 126 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) have improved the detection of diabetes, multiple reports indicate that many people with diabetes diagnosed by 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose measurements > or = 11.1 mmol/l (200 mg/dl) would remain undiagnosed based on this FPG criteria. Thus, improved methods to detect diabetes are particularly needed for high-risk individuals. We evaluated whether the combination of FPG and HbA1c measurements enhanced detection of diabetes in those individuals at risk for diabetes with nondiagnostic or minimally elevated FPG. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed FPG, OGTT, and HbA1c data from 244 subjects screened for participation in the Early Diabetes Intervention Program (EDIP). RESULTS: Of 244 high-risk subjects studied by FPG measurements and OGTT, 24% of the individuals with FPG levels of 5.5-6.0 mmol/l (100-109 mg/dl) had OGTT-diagnosed diabetes, and nearly 50% of the individuals with FPG levels of 6.1-6.9 mmol/l (110-125 mg/dl) had OGTT-diagnosed diabetes. In the subjects with OGTT-diagnosed diabetes and FPG levels between 5.5 and 8.0 mmol/l, detection of an elevated HbA1c (>6.1% or mean + 2 SDs) led to a substantial improvement in diagnostic sensitivity over the FPG threshold of 7.0 mmol/l (61 vs. 45%, respectively, P = 0.002). Concordant FPG levels > or = 7.0 mmol/l (currently recommended for diagnosis) occurred in only 19% of our cohort with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic criteria based on FPG criteria are relatively insensitive in the detection of early type 2 diabetes in at-risk subjects. HbA1c measurement improves the sensitivity of screening in high-risk individuals.     

Fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c in identifying and predicting diabetes: the strong heart study

OBJECTIVE: To compare fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA(1c) in identifying and predicting type 2 diabetes in a population with high rates of diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Diabetes was defined as an FPG level ≥ 126 mg/dL or an HbA(1c) level ≥ 6.5%. Data collected from the baseline and second exams (1989-1995) of the Strong Heart Study were used. RESULTS For cases of diabetes identified by FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL, using HbA(1c) ≥ 6.5% at the initial and 4-year follow-up diabetes screenings (or in identifying incident cases in 4 years) among undiagnosed participants left 46% and 59% of cases of diabetes undetected, respectively, whereas for cases identified by HbA(1c) ≥ 6.5%, using FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL left 11% and 59% unidentified, respectively. Age, waist circumference, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and baseline FPG and HbA(1c) levels were common significant risk factors for incident diabetes defined by either FPG or HbA(1c); triglyceride levels were significant for diabetes defined by HbA(1c) alone, and blood pressure and sibling history of diabetes were significant for diabetes defined by FPG alone. Using both the baseline FPG and HbA(1c) in diabetes prediction identified more people at risk than using either measure alone. CONCLUSIONS Among undiagnosed participants, using HbA(1c) alone in initial diabetes screening identifies fewer cases of diabetes than FPG, and using either FPG or HbA(1c) alone cannot effectively identify diabetes in a 4-year periodic successive diabetes screening or incident cases of diabetes in 4 years. Using both criteria may identify more people at risk. The proposed models using the commonly available clinical measures can be applied to assessing the risk of incident diabetes using either criterion.     

空腹血糖及糖化血红蛋白用于筛查糖耐量减退的比较性研究

目的比较空腹血糖（FPG）和糖化血红蛋白（HbAlc）在筛查糖耐量减退（IGT）中的应用价值。方法到我院门诊为明确有无血糖异常而就诊者336人，测定空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白，并行口服葡萄糖耐量试验（OGTT）。结果按照1999年WHO的DM诊断标准，本研究人群空腹血糖〈6．1者124例，≥6．1-〈7．0者56例，≥7．0者156例；糖化血红蛋白〈6．1者84例，≥6．1者252例；OGTT2 hPG〈7．8者92例，≥7．8-〈11．1者99例，≥11．1者145例。结论糖化血红蛋白和空腹血糖均不适用于筛查IGT人群，但糖化血红蛋白比空腹血糖提示病人是否存在血糖异常更敏感。     

糖化血红蛋白和血糖水平检测对精神病患者并发糖尿病的诊断价值

目的探讨糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、空腹血糖(FPG)、葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT)2 h血糖检测对精神病并发糖尿病诊断的临床价值。方法收集重庆市精神卫生中心歌乐山院区老年科及综合科107例精神病并发糖尿病患者纳入观察组,110例非糖尿病的精神病患者纳入疾病对照组,100例职工健康体检者纳入健康对照组。采集血清及抗凝全血标本,采用己糖激酶法测定FPG、OGTT 2 h血糖,采用液相色谱离子交换层析法检测HbA1c水平,比较3组研究对象各项指标水平,并分析观察组各项指标相关性及并发症发生情况。结果观察组患者的FPG、OGTT 2 h血糖、HbA1c水平均明显高于疾病对照组和健康对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);疾病对照组和健康对照组的FPG、OGTT 2 h血糖、HbA1c水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组中,FPG与HbA1c呈显著正相关(r=0.591,P<0.05);OGTT 2 h血糖水平与HbA1c水平呈显著正相关(r=0.564,P<0.05)。HbA1c>8%患者相关并发症的发生率均明显高于HbA1c≤8%患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论FPG、OGTT和HbA1c水平检测可作为诊断精神病患者并发糖尿病的一项重要指标,且对并发症发生风险具有重要的评估价值。     

Screening for type 2 diabetes with random finger‐prick glucose and bedside HbA1c in an Australian emergency department

Objective: To determine if screening for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and pre‐diabetes is feasible in an Australian ED; to estimate the prevalence of T2DM and pre‐diabetes in the Australian ED population. Methods: Prospective cross‐sectional prevalence survey in the ED of St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, an adult, tertiary referral centre seeing approximately 40 000 patients annually. A convenience sample of adult patients was screened with finger‐prick random blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c); those over 6.0 mmol/L and 6.0% were referred for oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Diagnoses of T2DM and pre‐diabetes were made according to World Health Organization definitions. Those not attending for OGTT were contacted by phone, and interviewed about their reasons. Results: Seven hundred and twenty‐five patients were recruited; 135 (18.6%; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 15.9–21.6%) had known T2DM, leaving 590 screened, of whom 210 screened positive. Of the 192 referred for OGTT, 147 (77%) did not attend despite several telephone reminders. Of the 45 (23%) completing OGTT, pre‐diabetes was present in eight (17.8%; 95% CI 9.0–31.6%) and T2DM in six (13.3%; 95% CI 5.9–26.6%). Many people interviewed (18/86, 21%) did not attend for OGTT on the advice of their doctors. Conclusions: This inner city tertiary ED has a high prevalence of T2DM, diagnosed and undiagnosed, with as much as half our population possibly affected. Although ED screening might have a high yield, opportunistic screening is not feasible, with difficulties in staff engagement and patient follow up for diagnostic testing. Future studies might consider finger‐prick fasting blood glucose through a patient's general practitioner for diagnosis.     

糖化血红蛋白对妊娠期糖尿病筛查及年龄依赖性发病率的价值探讨

目的探讨糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)筛查妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)及年龄依赖性发病率的价值。方法美国糖尿病协会(ADA)葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT)作为诊断GDM标准,将1 600例妊娠妇女(孕期24~28周)分为健康妊娠组1 319例、GDM组281例,同时测定2组HbA1c和空腹血糖(FPG)、1h及2h血糖,并进行统计学及受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析。结果 GDM组的HbA1c值显著高于健康妊娠组(P0.05)。当HbA1c诊断截点4.895%时,ROC曲线下面积(AUC)0.905,敏感性85.8%,特异性81.9%;FPG、1h血糖和2h血糖诊断GDM的ROC AUC分别为0.879、0.796及0.762。随着年龄的增加,不同年龄阶段GDM组中大于HbA1c诊断截点(4.895%)比例呈上升的趋势。结论随着年龄的增加,不同年龄阶段GDM组中HbA1c诊断GMD比例呈上升的趋势。OGTT与HbA1c联合检测能提高GDM诊断准确性,在GDM诊断及监测中有重要价值。     

初诊2型糖尿病患者糖化血红蛋白与并发症的关系

目的 探讨初诊2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)与糖尿病并发血管病变和肾功能损害的关系.方法 对221例初诊T2DM患者行颈动脉彩色多普勒超声波检查[颈动脉内膜至中膜厚度(IMT)＞1.3 mm诊断为血管病变,纳入血管病变组,反之纳入血管正常组],并检测尿微量清蛋白(mAlb)>22.5 mg/L诊断为肾功能损害,为RI组;mAlb 0~2.25 mg/L为肾功能正常,纳入NR组.利用ROC曲线分析不同切点HbA1c值,判断糖尿病并发血管病变和肾功能损害的敏感性和特异性.结果 HbA1c在不同切点HbA1c≥6.75%、HbA1c≥6.85%、HbA1c≥7.35%,诊断初诊T2DM 患者并发血管或肾功能损害、血管病变、肾功能损害的敏感度和特异性分别是93.4%和77.4%(ROC=0.929),91.7%和76.8%(ROC=0.918),85.7%和91.4%(ROC=0.943).结论 HbA1c用于早期预测诊断DM并发血管病变和肾功能损害具有较高的敏感度和特异性,对防治糖尿病并发血管病变和肾功能损害有重要意义.     

Postchallenge plasma glucose and glycemic spikes are more strongly associated with atherosclerosis than fasting glucose or HbA1c level

OBJECTIVE: To observe the relationship of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postchallenge plasma glucose (PG) (30, 60, 90, and 120 min during an oral glucose tolerance test [OGTT], as well as maximal PG during an OGTT, postchallenge glucose spikes [PGS], and glucose under the OGTT curve), and HbA1c to intima-media thickness (IMT) as a marker of atherosclerosis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: OGTT, ultrasound measurement of carotid IMT, and various atherosclerosis risk factors, such as family history of diabetes, obesity, and/or hyperlipoproteinemia, but without known diabetes, were analyzed in 582 individuals aged 40-70 years and at risk for type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, all examined glycemic parameters were significantly correlated to IMT. The 2-h postchallenge plasma glucose showed the strongest odds ratio (OR) of 1.88 (1.34-2.63) in relation to abnormal IMT. All PG variables, except for 30-min glucose in OGTT, showed a significant OR, whereas the OR for HbA1c and FPG was not significant. In logistic regression analysis, 2-h PG was identified as the strongest determinant of IMT from all glycemic parameters. The 2-h PG and PGS, but not FPG, were associated with a significant rise of IMT in tertiles of HbA1c. Glycemic parameters were strongly related to each other and to many atherosclerosis risk factors. In multivariate analysis including a variety of atherosclerosis risk factors, 2-h PG was a significant independent determinant of IMT. CONCLUSIONS: PG and PGS are more strongly associated with carotid IMT than FPG and HbA1c level and modify substantially the risk for atherosclerosis, estimated by HbA1c alone, in a cohort at risk for diabetes and in the early diabetes stage.     

Combined use of fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c predicts the progression to diabetes in Chinese subjects

OBJECTIVE: We have previously suggested using the paired values of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c to identify potential diabetic subjects. In this article, we followed up on 208 nondiabetic subjects and examined their rates of progression to diabetes. We analyzed their likelihood of becoming diabetic according to their baseline FPG and HbA1c concentrations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Between 1988 and 1995, 2,877 Chinese subjects with risk factors for diabetes underwent screening. Of these, 2,250 had FPG <7.8 mmol/l and 2-h plasma glucose (PG) <11.1 mmol/l. Of these 2,250 subjects, 265 were randomly recruited for an annual oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) until they progressed to develop diabetes. Of those 265 subjects, 57 had baseline FPG > or =7.0 mmol/l and were excluded from the present analysis. Hence, the progression of glucose tolerance in 208 subjects who were nondiabetic according to the new American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria (FPG < 7.0 mmol/l and 2-h PG < 11.1 mmol/l) was examined RESULTS: Of the 208 nondiabetic subjects, 26 (12.5%) were men and 182 (87.5%) were women. After a mean follow-up of 1.60 +/- 1.16 years (range 1-7, median 1), 44 (21.2%) progressed to develop diabetes and 164 (78.8%) remained nondiabetic. Those who were diabetic at the end of the study had a high likelihood ratio (LR) of 9.3 to have baseline FPG > or =6.1 mmol/l and baseline HbA1c > or =6.1%. This was compared with a low LR of 0.6-1.1 in diabetic subjects who had either FPG <6.1 mmol/l or HbA1c <6.1% or both at baseline. The crude rate of progression to diabetes was more than five times higher (44.1 vs. 8.1%) in those whose baseline FPG was > or =6.1 mmol/l and baseline HbA1c was > or =6.1% compared with those whose baseline FPG was <6.1 mmol/l and baseline HbA1c was <6.1%. CONCLUSIONS: For Chinese subjects with risk factors for glucose intolerance, the use of paired FPG and HbA1c values helped to identify potential diabetic subjects. Those with an FPG > or =6.1 mmol/l and HbA1c > or =6.1% had a rate of progression to diabetes more than five times higher than those with an FPG <6.1 mmol/l and an HbA1c <6.1% after a mean follow-up of 1.6 years. Those with an FPG > or =6.1 but <7.0 mmol/l, especially if their HbA1c was > or =6.1%, should undergo an OGTT to confirm diabetes. Subjects with an FPG <6.1 mmol/l and/or an HbA1c <6.1% should have regular screening using the paired values of FPG and HbA1c.     

血清FPG 及HbA1c 水平检测对2 型糖尿病继发干眼症的预测价值研究及危险因素分析

目的　探讨血清空腹血糖（fasting blood glucose,FPG）及糖化血红蛋白（glycosylated hemoglobin,HbA1c） 水平检测对2 型糖尿病继发干眼症的预测价值研究及危险因素分析。方法　选择唐山市眼科医院2017 年8 月～ 2019 年8 月收治的60 例2 型糖尿病继发干眼症患者为干眼症组,另外纳入同期于该院治疗的60 例2 型糖尿病患者为糖尿 病组。对比两组基础资料（年龄、性别、病程、泪腺功能、胰岛素分泌以及FPG,HbA1c 水平）,采用ROC 曲线分析 FPG,HbA1c 水平预测2 型糖尿病患者发生干眼症价值;采用Logistic 回归分析模型,明确2 型糖尿病患者发生干眼症 的危险因素。结果　经单因素分析,两组年龄、性别以及病程比较,差异无统计学意义（t=0.134, χ2=0.186,t=0.223, 均P ＞ 0.05）;干眼症组存在泪腺功能障碍、胰岛素分泌不足患者显著多于糖尿病组,差异有统计学意义（χ2=5.829,8.336, 均P ＜ 0.05）;干眼症组FPG,HbA1c 水平显著高于糖尿病组,差异有统计学意义（t=2.922,5.925,均P ＜ 0.05）。 经ROC分析FPG 和HbA1c 的曲线下面积分别为0.738 和0.701,标准差分别为0.045 和0.047,95%CI 分别为0.651 ～ 0.825 和0.609~0.794,最佳截断值分别为8.765mmol/L 和6.875%,敏感度分别为0.567 和0.933,特异度分别为0.750 和0.400。 经Logistic 回归性分析证实存在泪腺功能障碍、胰岛素分泌不足、FPG ＞ 8.765mmol/L 以及HbA1c ＞ 6.875% 是2 型糖 尿病患者发生干眼症的危险因素。结论　影响2 型糖尿病患者发生干眼症的危险因素较多,如存在泪腺功能障碍、胰岛 素分泌不足以及FPG,HbA1c,其中FPG ＞ 8.765mmol/L 和HbA1c ＞ 6.875% 是预测2 型糖尿病患者发生干眼症的最佳 截断值,在预防2 型糖尿病患者发生干眼症的过程中具有一定的参考价值,临床应当关注。     

糖化血红蛋白在早孕期糖尿病筛查中的意义

目的：探讨糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）在早孕期糖尿病（GDM）筛查中的意义。方法正常组120例、糖耐量异常组59例及糖尿病组78例,在妊娠20周时分别进行空腹血糖（FPG）、75g葡萄糖耐量实验（OGTT）和HbA1c测定。结果糖尿病组FPG,OGTT,HbA1c水平均高于正常组（P〈0.01）,HbA1c在糖耐量异常组及糖尿病组中的阳性率分别为96.7%、98.7%。结论 HbA1c在GDM筛查中的诊断效率明显高于FPG和OGTT,可作为临床GDM早孕期筛查诊断的指标。     

Using HbA(1c) to improve efficacy of the american diabetes association fasting plasma glucose criterion in screening for new type 2 diabetes in American Indians: the strong heart study

OBJECTIVE: To find an optimal critical line in the fasting plasma glucose (FPG)-HbA(1c) plane for identifying diabetes in participants with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and thereby improve the efficacy of using FPG alone in diabetes screening among American Indians. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used FPG, 2-h postload glucose (2hPG), and HbA(1c) measured in the 2,389 American Indians (aged 45-74 years, without diabetes treatment or prior history of diabetes) in the Strong Heart Study (SHS) baseline (second) examination. Participants were classified as having diabetes if they had either FPG > or =126 mg/dl or 2hPG > or =200 mg/dl, as having IFG if they had 110 < or = FPG < 126 mg/dl, and as having normal fasting glucose (NFG) if they had FPG <110, according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) definition. Logistic regression models were used for identifying diabetes (2hPG > or =200 mg/dl) in IFG participants. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves generated by different logistic regression models were evaluated and compared to select the best model. A utility function based on the best model and the cost-to-benefit ratio was used to find the optimal critical line. The data from the second examination were used to study the effect of the time interval between the successive diabetes screenings on both the FPG criterion and the optimal critical line. RESULTS: A total of 37% of all subjects with new diabetes at baseline and 55.2% of those in the second exam had 2hPG > or =200 but FPG <126. There was a very large portion of IFG participants with diabetes (19.3 and 22.9% in the baseline and second exam, respectively). Among the areas under the ROC curves, the area generated by the logistic regression model on FPG plus HbA(1c) is the largest and is significantly larger than that based on FPG (P = 0.0008). For a cost-to-benefit ratio of 0.23888, the optimal critical line that has the highest utility is: 0.89 x HbA(1c) + 0.11 x FPG = 17.92. Those IFG participants whose FPG and HbA(1c) were above or on the line were referred to take an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose diabetes. The optimal critical line is lower if a successive diabetes screening will be conducted 4 years after the previous screening. CONCLUSIONS: FPG > or =126 and 2hPG > or =200, as suggested by the ADA, are used independently to define diabetes. The FPG level is easy to obtain, and using FPG alone is suggested for diabetes screening. It is difficult to get physicians and patients to perform an OGTT to get a 2hPG level because of the many drawbacks of the OGTT, especially in those patients who already have FPG <126. It is also impractical to conduct an OGTT for everyone in a diabetes screening. Our data show that 37% of all subjects with new diabetes in the SHS baseline exam and 55.2% of those in the second exam have 2hPG > or =200 but FPG <126. These cases of diabetes cannot be detected if FPG is used alone in a diabetes screening. Therefore, although the small portion of diabetes in the NFG group (4.7% in the baseline and 6.9% in the second exam) may be ignored, those cases of diabetes among IFG participants ( approximately 20% in our data) need further consideration in a diabetes screening. It may be worthwhile for those IFG participants identified by the optimal critical line to take an OGTT. The optimal critical line and time interval between successive diabetes screenings need further study.