Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Diabetes Screening (diabetes + screening)
Selected AbstractsScreening for type 2 diabetes: an update of the evidenceDIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, Issue 10 2010R. K. Simmons A growing body of evidence on diabetes screening has been published during the last 10 years. Type 2 diabetes meets many but not all of the criteria for screening. Concerns about potential harms of screening have largely been resolved. Screening identifies a high-risk population with the potential to gain from widely available interventions. However, in spite of the findings of modelling studies, the size of the benefit of earlier initiation of treatment and the overall cost-effectiveness remains uncertain, in contrast to other screening programmes (such as for abdominal aortic aneurysms) that are yet to be fully implemented. There is also uncertainty about optimal specifications and implementation of a screening programme, and further work to complete concerning development and delivery of individual- and population-level preventive strategies. While there is growing evidence of the net benefit of earlier detection of individuals with prevalent but undiagnosed diabetes, there remains limited justification for a policy of universal population-based screening for type 2 diabetes at the present time. Data from ongoing studies should inform the key assumptions in existing modelling studies and further reduce uncertainty. [source] Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in polycystic ovary syndrome: what are the risks and can they be reduced?DIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 5 2010J. Tomlinson Diabet. Med. 27, 498,515 (2010) Abstract Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a risk factor for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but these risks are poorly defined. This study aimed to evaluate the evidence for these risks and whether screening and risk reduction are feasible. Medline reviews and data quality analysis were used using standard tools. Results showed that (i) polycystic ovary syndrome is a risk factor forT2DM but the magnitude of risk is uncertain, (ii) fasting plasma glucose is an inadequate screening test forT2DM in this population and the oral glucose tolerance test is superior, (iii) the identification of women with PCOS for diabetes screening is constrained by current diagnostic criteria for PCOS; however, women with oligomenorrhoea and those with diagnosed PCOS and obesity or a family history of T2DM are at highest risk, (iv) risk factors for T2DM are improved by weight loss interventions and by metformin. However, no studies have determined whether T2DM incidence is reduced, (v) polycystic ovary syndrome is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors but data on CVD incidence are weak, (vi) risk factors for CVD are improved by the same interventions and statins and (vi) no studies have evaluated whether CVD incidence is reduced. While PCOS has important metabolic associations, and short-term interventions reduce risk factors for T2DM and CVD, data on prevalence and incidence of T2DM and particularly CVD are poor. There is a need for a clear definition of PCOS, for diabetes screening protocols and for long-term studies to determine whether risks can be reduced. [source] Socioeconomic factors related to attendance at a Type 2 diabetes screening programmeDIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 5 2009E-M. Dalsgaard Abstract Aims, The prevalence of diabetes is increasing, and screening of high-risk populations is recommended. A low attendance rate has been observed in many Type 2 diabetes screening programmes, so that an analysis of factors related to attendance is therefore relevant. This paper analyses the association between socioeconomic factors and attendance for Type 2 diabetes screening. Methods, Persons aged 40,69 years (n = 4603) were invited to participate in a stepwise diabetes screening programme performed in general practitioners' offices in the county of Aarhus, Denmark in 2001. The study was population-based and cross-sectional with follow-up. The association between screening attendance in the high-risk population and socioeconomic factors was analysed by odds ratio. Results, Forty-four percent of the estimated high-risk population attended the screening programme. In those with known risk for Type 2 diabetes, attenders were more likely to be older, to be unemployed and to live in the countryside than non-attenders. The risk for Type 2 diabetes was unknown for 21% of the study population; this group was younger and less likely to be cohabitant, skilled, or employed and to have middle or high income than the study population with known risk score for diabetes. Conclusions, A low attendance rate was found in this screening programme for Type 2 diabetes. No substantial socioeconomic difference was found between attenders and non-attenders in the high-risk population. Further research is needed to uncover barriers to screening of Type 2 diabetes in socioeconomically deprived persons. [source] Estimated Risk for Undiagnosed Diabetes in the Emergency Department: A Multicenter SurveyACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 5 2007Adit A. Ginde MD BackgroundOne third of the 21 million Americans with diabetes remain undiagnosed. The emergency department (ED) is a novel setting for diabetes screening. ObjectivesTo estimate risk factors for undiagnosed diabetes in the ED. MethodsThis was a cross sectional survey in five Boston EDs. The authors enrolled consecutive adults without known diabetes over two 24-hour periods at each site. The focus was on diabetes risk factors and estimated risk for diabetes on the basis of American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. The authors also examined prior diabetes testing and willingness to participate in ED-based diabetes screening. ResultsSix hundred four patients (70% of eligible) were enrolled. On the basis of ADA risk score, 33% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 29% to 37%) were high risk for undiagnosed diabetes, and an additional 42% (95% CI = 38% to 46%) had elevated risk. For example, 58% (95% CI = 54% to 62%) of participants were overweight or obese (body mass index of ,25). Among these at-risk participants without prior diabetes testing, 73% (95% CI = 66% to 80%) reported amenability to having additional blood drawn for ED diabetes screening, and 98% (95% CI = 96% to 100%) indicated that they would follow up for confirmation of abnormal screening. ConclusionsMany ED patients in the study had risk factors for undiagnosed diabetes. Patient attitudes toward ED-based diabetes screening support further exploration of this important and currently underutilized opportunity for public health intervention. [source] Liver disease as risk factor for cystic fibrosis-related diabetes developmentACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 5 2007L Minicucci Abstract Aim: To evaluate clinical and genetic factors, besides pancreatic insufficiency, associated with increased risk of cystic fibrosis-related diabetes. Methods: Case-control (1:1) study on 138 cystic fibrosis patients. Data were collected on gender, age at diagnosis, reason for cystic fibrosis diagnosis, family history of type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, pre-existing severe liver disease, and class of cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulation mutation. Moreover, information was obtained on lung involvement and degree of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency evaluated 1 year before the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis-related diabetes in patients and age-matched controls. Results: Compared to controls, patients with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes had a higher probability of having already been diagnosed with liver disease (16.7% versus 1.7%, OR = 11.6, 95% CI 1.43,93.0). Moreover, in the year before diabetes onset, cases had slightly worse pulmonary function compared to controls (FEV1= 58.4 ± 27% predicted versus 67.4 ± 21% predicted; p = 0.05). No significant effects related to the other factors considered were found. Conclusion: Severe liver disease was found to significantly increase the risk of developing cystic fibrosis-related diabetes. Patients with liver disease should be scheduled for earlier diabetes screening in order to identify and possibly treat glucose intolerance. [source] | ||||||||||