Screening for Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes With Proposed A1C-Based Diagnostic Criteria

OBJECTIVE

An International Expert Committee (IEC) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) proposed diagnostic criteria for diabetes and pre-diabetes based on A1C levels. We hypothesized that screening for diabetes and pre-diabetes with A1C measurements would differ from using oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We compared pre-diabetes, dysglycemia (diabetes or pre-diabetes), and diabetes identified by the proposed criteria (A1C ≥6.5% for diabetes and 6.0–6.4% IEC] or 5.7–6.4% ADA] for high risk/pre-diabetes) with standard OGTT diagnoses in three datasets. Non-Hispanic white or black adults without known diabetes who had A1C and 75-g OGTT measurements were included from the prospective Screening for Impaired Glucose Tolerance study (n = 1,581), and from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III (n = 2014), and NHANES 2005–2006 (n = 1,111).

RESULTS

OGTTs revealed pre-diabetes in 35.8% and diabetes in 5.2% of combined study subjects. A1C provided receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas for diabetes of 0.79–0.83, but ROC curve areas were ≤0.70 for dysglycemia or pre-diabetes. The proposed criteria missed 70% of individuals with diabetes, 71–84% with dysglycemia, and 82–94% with pre-diabetes. Compared with the IEC criteria, the ADA criteria for pre-diabetes resulted in fewer false-negative and more false-positive result. There were also racial differences, with false-positive results being more common in black subjects and false-negative results being more common in white subjects. With use of NHANES 2005–2006 data, ∼5.9 million non-Hispanic U.S. adults with unrecognized diabetes and 43–52 million with pre-diabetes would be missed by screening with A1C.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed A1C diagnostic criteria are insensitive and racially discrepant for screening, missing most Americans with undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes.Diabetes affects >21 million American adults (1,2), with a lifetime risk ranging from 20 to 50+%, depending on sex and race (3). Identification of diabetes and its precursor, pre-diabetes, can permit management to prevent complications or delay progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes. Because most U.S. health care systems do not have systematic screening programs, many Americans have undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes, and, therefore, these individuals are not initiating programs targeted at prevention (2).An International Expert Committee (IEC) recently proposed new diagnostic criteria based on measurement of A1C, with A1C ≥6.5% for diabetes and 6.0–6.4% for “high risk” of progression to diabetes (4). The American Diabetes Association (ADA) subsequently proposed A1C ≥6.5% for the diagnosis of diabetes and 5.7–6.4% for the highest risk to progress to diabetes (5).Because A1C testing is readily available in the U.S., is relatively well standardized, exhibits low intraindividual variation, and does not require fasting or restriction to certain times of the day (6), many clinicians might wish to use A1C measurements to screen for diabetes and pre-diabetes. However, the proposed diagnostic criteria were based largely on identification of diabetic retinopathy, and use of the proposed criteria as a screening test is not understood. The IEC A1C criteria have recently been compared with testing with fasting glucose or oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in various populations to diagnose diabetes (7–13) and high-risk/pre-diabetes (10,11,13), but the ADA A1C criteria have not been studied.We hypothesized that A1C diagnostic criteria would fail to identify many subjects with unrecognized diabetes or pre-diabetes. We evaluated the proposed criteria as screening tests in three populations, compared with the OGTT as a “gold standard” used for identification of diabetes and pre-diabetes around the world (14).