Screening for Type 2 Diabetes - Diabetes Care - American Diabetes

Screening for Type 2 Diabetes - Diabetes Care - American Diabetes

P O S I T I O N S T A T E M E N T Screening for Type 2 Diabetes AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION D iabetes mellitus is a group of metabolic diseases ...

64KB Sizes 0 Downloads 9 Views

P O S I T I O N

S T A T E M E N T

Screening for Type 2 Diabetes AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION

D

iabetes mellitus is a group of metabolic diseases characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from defects in insulin secretion, insulin action, or both. Type 2 diabetes, the most prevalent form of the disease, is often asymptomatic in its early stages and can remain undiagnosed for many years. The chronic hyperglycemia of diabetes is associated with long-term dysfunction, damage, and failure of various organs, especially the eyes, kidneys, nerves, heart, and blood vessels. Individuals with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes are also at significantly higher risk for stroke, coronary heart disease, and peripheral vascular disease than the nondiabetic population. They also have a greater likelihood of having dyslipidemia, hypertension, and obesity. Because early detection and prompt treatment may reduce the burden of diabetes and its complications, screening for diabetes may be appropriate under certain circumstances. This position statement provides recommendations for diabetes screenings performed in physicians’ offices and in other health care settings. This position statement does not address screening for type 1 diabetes or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Because of the acute onset of symptoms, most cases of type 1 diabetes are detected soon after symptoms develop. Widespread clinical testing of asymptomatic individuals for the presence of autoantibodies related to type 1 diabetes cannot be recommended at this time as a means to identify persons at risk. Reasons for this include the following: 1) cutoff values for some of the immune marker assays have not been completely established in clinical settings; 2) there is no consensus as to what action should be taken when a pos-

itive autoantibody test result is obtained; and 3) because the incidence of type 1 diabetes is low, testing of healthy children will identify only a very small number (⬍0.5%) who at that moment may be “prediabetic.” Clinical studies are being conducted to test various methods of preventing type 1 diabetes in high-risk individuals (e.g., siblings of type 1 diabetic patients). These studies may uncover an effective means of preventing type 1 diabetes, in which case targeted screening may be appropriate in the future. For information on screening for GDM, refer to the American Diabetes Association’s position statement “Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.” DIABETES PREVALENCE AND RISK FACTORS — The estimated prevalence of diabetes among adults was 7.4% in 1995; this is expected to rise to ⬃9% in 2025. However, specific population subgroups have a much higher prevalence of the disease than the population as a whole. These subgroups have certain attributes or risk factors that either directly cause diabetes or are associated with it. The correlation of a risk factor(s) with development of diabetes is never 100%. However, the greater the number of risk factors present in an individual, the greater the chance of that individual developing or having diabetes. Conversely, the chance of an asymptomatic individual without any risk factors having or developing diabetes is relatively low. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases with age, obesity, and lack of physical activity. Type 2 diabetes is more common in individuals with a family history of the disease and in members of certain racial/ethnic groups. It occurs more

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

The recommendations in this paper are based on the evidence reviewed in the following publication: Screening for type 2 diabetes (Technical Review). Diabetes Care 23:1563–1580, 2000. The paper was peer-reviewed, modified, and approved by the Professional Practice Committee and the Executive Committee, October 2000. Abbreviations: DPP, Diabetes Prevention Program; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; IFG, impaired fasting glucose; IGT, impaired glucose tolerance; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test.

DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 26, SUPPLEMENT 1, JANUARY 2003

frequently in women with prior GDM or polycystic ovary syndrome and in individuals with hypertension, dyslipidemia, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), or impaired fasting glucose (IFG). PRINCIPLES TO ASSESS THE VALUE OF SCREENING FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES — There is a major distinction between diagnostic testing and screening. When an individual exhibits symptoms or signs of the disease, diagnostic tests are performed, and such tests do not represent screening. The purpose of screening is to identify asymptomatic individuals who are likely to have diabetes. Separate diagnostic tests using standard criteria are required after positive screening tests to establish a definitive diagnosis. Generally, screening in asymptomatic populations is appropriate when seven conditions are met: 1) the disease represents an important health problem that imposes a significant burden on the population; 2) the natural history of the disease is understood; 3) there is a recognizable preclinical (asymptomatic) stage during which the disease can be diagnosed; 4) tests are available that can detect the preclinical stage of the disease, and the tests are acceptable and reliable; 5) treatment after early detection yields benefits superior to those obtained when treatment is delayed; 6) the costs of case finding and treatment are reasonable and are balanced in relation to health expenditures as a whole, and facilities and resources are available to treat newly diagnosed cases; and 7) screening will be a systematic ongoing process and not merely an isolated one-time effort. For diabetes, conditions 1– 4 are met. Conditions 5–7 have not been met entirely because there are no randomized clinical trials documenting the effectiveness of screening programs in decreasing mortality and morbidity from diabetes, and some controversy exists regarding the cost-effectiveness of screening and S21

Position Statement

Table 1—Risk factors for type 2 diabetes Age ⱖ45 years Overweight (BMI ⱖ25 kg/m2*) Family history of diabetes (i.e., parents or siblings with diabetes) Habitual physical inactivity Race/ethnicity (e.g., African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans, AsianAmericans, and Pacific Islanders) Previously identified IFG or IGT History of GDM or delivery of a baby weighing ⬎9 lbs Hypertension (ⱖ140/90 mmHg in adults) HDL cholesterol ⱕ35 mg/dl (0.90 mmol/l) and/or a triglyceride level ⱖ250 mg/dl (2.82 mmol/l) Polycystic ovary syndrome History of vascular disease *May not be correct for all ethnic groups.

whether screening as currently carried out is a systematic and ongoing process. Randomized clinical trials would be the best means to evaluate the benefits and risks of diabetes screening and early treatment. However, rigorous studies that apply currently available treatments to a screened group but not to a control group have not been done and are unlikely to be performed soon because of feasibility, ethical concerns, and costs. Thus, while it is well established that treating diabetes diagnosed through standard clinical practice is effective in reducing diabetic microvascular complications, it is unknown whether the additional years of treatment that might be received by individuals diagnosed through screening would result in clinically important improvements in diabetes-related outcomes. A large clinical trial, the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), is underway in the U.S. It is designed to answer the question of whether treatment with lifestyle interventions or metformin for patients with IGT or IFG detected through a screening program will reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes. If the DPP demonstrates a reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes as a result of one or more of the interventions, then more widespread screening for these conditions, which would incidentally detect many cases of asymptomatic diabetes, may be justified. The effectiveness of screening may also depend on the setting in which it is performed. In general, community screening outside a health care setting may be less effective because of the failure of people with a positive screening test to seek and obtain appropriate follow-up testing and care or, conversely, to ensure S22

appropriate repeat testing for individuals who screen negative. That is, screening outside of clinical settings may yield abnormal tests that are never discussed with a primary care provider, low compliance with treatment recommendations, and a very uncertain impact on long-term health. Community screening may also be poorly targeted, i.e., it may fail to reach the groups most at risk and inappropriately test those at low risk (the worried well) or even those already diagnosed. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUALS — Based on the lack of data from prospective studies on the benefits of screening and the relatively low cost-effectiveness of screening suggested by existing studies, the decision to test for diabetes should ultimately be based on clinical judgment and patient preference. On the basis of expert opinion, screening should be considered by health care providers at 3-year intervals begin-

ning at age 45, particularly in those with BMI ⱖ25 kg/m2. The rationale for this interval is that false negatives will be repeated before substantial time elapses, and there is little likelihood of an individual developing any of the complications of diabetes to a significant degree within 3 years of a negative screening test result. Testing should be considered at a younger age or be carried out more frequently in individuals who are overweight and have one or more of the other risk factors shown in Table 1. Patients presenting to health care providers with symptoms of marked hyperglycemia, including polyuria, polydipsia, weight loss (sometimes with polyphagia) and blurred vision, should receive diagnostic testing for diabetes, as should those with potential complications of diabetes or with any other clinical presentation in which diabetes is included in the differential diagnosis. Such diagnostic testing, however, does not constitute screening. The incidence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents has been shown to be increasing. Consistent with screening recommendations for adults, only children and youth at substantial risk for the presence or the development of type 2 diabetes should be tested. Although there are insufficient data to make definite recommendations, the American Diabetes Association consensus statement titled “Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents” recommends that overweight (defined as BMI ⬎85th percentile for age and sex, weight for height ⬎85th percentile, or weight ⬎120% of ideal [50th percentile] for height) youths with any two of the risk factors listed below be screened. Testing should be done every 2 years starting at age 10 years or at the onset of puberty if it occurs at a younger age. Testing may be

Table 2—Criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes Normoglycemia FPG ⬍110 mg/dl 2-h PG† ⬍140 mg/dl

IFG or IGT

Diabetes*

FPG ⱖ110 and ⬍126 mg/dl (IFG) 2-h PG† ⱖ140 and ⬍200 mg/dl (IGT)

FPG ⱖ126 mg/dl 2-h PG† ⱖ200 mg/dl Symptoms of diabetes and casual plasma glucose concentration ⱖ200 mg/dl

*A diagnosis of diabetes must be confirmed, on a subsequent day, by measurement of FPG, 2-h PG, or random plasma glucose (if symptoms are present). The FPG test is greatly preferred because of ease of administration, convenience, acceptability to patients, and lower cost. Fasting is defined as no caloric intake for at least 8 h. †This test requires the use of a glucose load containing the equivalent of 75 g anhydrous glucose dissolved in water. 2-h PG, 2-h postload glucose.

DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 26, SUPPLEMENT 1, JANUARY 2003

Screening for Diabetes

Table 3—Summary of major recommendations Evidence grading

Recommendations Evaluation for type 2 diabetes should be performed within the health care setting. Patients, particularly those with a BMI ⱖ25 kg/m2*, should be screened at 3-year intervals beginning at age 45; testing should be considered at an earlier age or be carried out more frequently in those who are overweight if additional diabetes risk factors are present. The FPG is the recommended screening test. The OGTT may be necessary for the diagnosis of diabetes when the FPG is normal. The FPG is preferred for screenings because it is faster and easier to perform, more convenient, acceptable to patients, and less expensive. Diagnostic testing should be performed in any clinical situation in which such testing is warranted; health care providers should not consider whether a person meets screening criteria in such cases. Screening outside of health care settings, or community screening, has not been shown to be beneficial and may result in some harm; this type of screening is not recommended.

E

C

E

E

*May not be correct for all ethnic groups.

considered in other high-risk patients who display any of the following characteristics: ● ●



Have a family history of type 2 diabetes in first- and second-degree relatives; Belong to a certain race/ethnic group (Native Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asians/South Pacific Islanders); Have signs of insulin resistance or conditions associated with insulin resistance (acanthosis nigricans, hypertension, dyslipidemia, polycystic ovary syndrome).

TESTS — The best screening test for diabetes, the fasting plasma glucose (FPG), is also a component of diagnostic testing. The FPG test and the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) are both suitable tests for diabetes; however, the FPG test is preferred in clinical settings because it is easier and faster to perform, more convenient and acceptable to patients, and less expensive. An FPG ⱖ126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l) is an indication for retesting, which should be repeated on a different day to confirm a diagnosis. If the FPG is ⬍126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l) and there is a high suspicion for diabetes, an OGTT should be performed. A 2-h postload value in the OGTT ⱖ200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) is a positive test for diabetes and should be confirmed on an alternate day. Table 2 presents the diagnostic criteria for diabetes. Fasting is defined as no con-

sumption of food or beverage other than water for at least 8 h before testing. Nondiabetic individuals with an FPG ⱖ110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/l) but ⬍126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l) are considered to have IFG, and those with 2-h values in the OGTT ⱖ140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) but ⬍200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) are defined as having IGT. Both IFG and IGT are risk factors for future diabetes. Normoglycemia is defined as plasma glucose levels ⬍110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/l) in the FPG test and a 2-h postload value ⬍140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) in the OGTT. If necessary, plasma glucose testing may be performed on individuals who have taken food or drink shortly before testing. Such tests are referred to as casual plasma glucose measurements and are given without regard to time of last meal. A casual plasma glucose level ⱖ200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) with symptoms of diabetes is considered diagnostic of diabetes. A confirmatory FPG test or OGTT should be completed on a different day if the clinical condition of the patient permits. Laboratory measurement of plasma glucose concentration is performed on venous samples with enzymatic assay techniques, and the above-mentioned values are based on the use of such methods. The A1C test values remain a valuable tool for monitoring glycemia, but it is not currently recommended for the screening or diagnosis of diabetes. Pencil and paper tests, such as the American Diabetes Association’s risk test, may be use-

DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 26, SUPPLEMENT 1, JANUARY 2003

ful for educational purposes but do not perform well as stand-alone tests. Capillary blood glucose testing using a reflectance blood glucose meter has also been used, but because of the imprecision of this method, it is better used for selfmonitoring rather than as a screening tool. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS — In screening for disease, it is crucial that an interpretation of the screening test results be provided to the patient and that follow-up evaluation and treatment are made available. Also, it is important to consider that certain drugs, including glucocorticoids and nicotinic acid, may produce hyperglycemia. COMMUNITY SCREENING — Although there is ample scientific evidence showing that certain risk factors predispose individuals to development of diabetes (Table 1), there is insufficient evidence to conclude that community screening is a costeffective approach to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes in presumably healthy individuals. While community screening programs may provide a means to enhance public awareness of the seriousness of diabetes and its complications, other less costly approaches may be more appropriate, particularly because the potential risks are poorly defined. Thus, based on the lack of scientific evidence, community screening for diabetes, even in high-risk populations, is not recommended. CONCLUSION — Diabetes is frequently not diagnosed until complications appear, and approximately onethird of all people with diabetes may be undiagnosed. Although the burden of diabetes is well known, the natural history is well characterized, and there is good evidence for benefit from treating cases diagnosed through usual clinical care, there are no randomized trials demonstrating the benefits of early diagnosis through screening of asymptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, there is sufficient indirect evidence to justify opportunistic screening in a clinical setting of individuals at high risk. Also, clinicians should be vigilant in evaluating clinical presentations suggestive of diabetes. A summary of screening recommendations is included in Table 3. S23

Position Statement

Bibliography Adler AI, Neil HA, Manley SE, Holman RR, Turner RC: Hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia at diagnosis of diabetes and their association with subsequent cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 47). Am Heart J 138:S353–S359, 1999 Adler AI, Stratton IM, Neil H, Andrew W, Yudkin JS, Matthews DR, Cull CA, Wright AD, Turner RC, Holman RR: Association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 36): prospective observational study. BMJ 321:412– 419, 2000 American Diabetes Association: Gestational diabetes mellitus (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 25 (Suppl. 1):S94 –S96, 2002 American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 25 (Suppl. 1):S33–S49, 2002 American Diabetes Association: Type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents (Consensus Statement). Diabetes Care 23:381–389, 2000 Colwell JA: Aspirin therapy in diabetes (Technical Review). Diabetes Care 20:1767– 1771, 1997 Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group: The Diabetes Prevention Program: design and methods for a clinical trial in the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 22: 623– 634, 1999 Engelgau ME, Narayan KMV, Herman WH: Screening for type 2 diabetes (Technical Re-

S24

view). Diabetes Care 23:1563–1580, 2000 (erratum appears in Diabetes Care 23: 1868 –1869, 2000) 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 24 (Suppl. 1):S5–S20, 2001 Haffner SM: Management of dyslipidemia in adults with diabetes (Technical Review). Diabetes Care 21:160 –178, 1998 Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, Dahlof B, Elmfeldt D, Julius S, Menard J, Rahn KH, Wedel H, Westerling S: Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and lowdose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial: HOT Study Group. Lancet 351:1755–1762, 1998 HDS Study Group: Hypertension in Diabetes Study (HDS). I. Prevalence of hypertension in newly presenting type 2 diabetic patients and the association with risk factors for cardiovascular and diabetic complications. J Hypertens 11:309 –317, 1993 Klein R, Klein BE: Relation of glycemic control to diabetic complications and health outcomes. Diabetes Care 21 (Suppl. 3):C39 – C43, 1998 Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, Miyata T, Isami S, Motoyoshi S, Kojima Y, Furuyoshi N, Shichiri M: Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients

with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 28:103–117, 1995 Shichiri M, Kishikawa H, Ohkubo Y, Wake N: Long-term results of the Kumamoto Study on optimal diabetes control in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 23 (Suppl. 2): B21–B29, 2000 Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HAW, Matthews DR, Manley SE, Cull CA, Hadden D, Turner RC, Holman R: Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study: BMJ 321: 405– 412, 2000 U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group: Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33) Lancet 352:837– 853, 1998 U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 38). BMJ 317: 703–713, 1998 Wake N, Hisashige A, Katayama T, Kishikawa, H, Ohkubo Y, Sakai M, Araki E, Shichiri M: Cost-effectiveness of intensive insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes: a 10-year follow-up of the Kumamoto study: Diabetes Res Clin Pract 48:201–210, 2000 Weir GC, Nathan DM, Singer DE: Standards of care for diabetes (Technical Review). Diabetes Care 17:1514 –1522, 1994

DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 26, SUPPLEMENT 1, JANUARY 2003