75
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk Assessment Tools for Identifying Individuals at Risk of Developing Type 2 Diabetes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Trials have demonstrated the preventability of type 2 diabetes through lifestyle modifications or drugs in people with impaired glucose tolerance. However, alternative ways of identifying people at risk of developing diabetes are required. Multivariate risk scores have been developed for this purpose. This article examines the evidence for performance of diabetes risk scores in adults by 1) systematically reviewing the literature on available scores and 2) their validation in external populations; and 3) exploring methodological issues surrounding the development, validation, and comparison of risk scores. Risk scores show overall good discriminatory ability in populations for whom they were developed. However, discriminatory performance is more heterogeneous and generally weaker in external populations, which suggests that risk scores may need to be validated within the population in which they are intended to be used. Whether risk scores enable accurate estimation of absolute risk remains unknown; thus, care is needed when using scores to communicate absolute diabetes risk to individuals. Several risk scores predict diabetes risk based on routine noninvasive measures or on data from questionnaires. Biochemical measures, in particular fasting plasma glucose, can improve prediction of such models. On the other hand, usefulness of genetic profiling currently appears limited.

          Related collections

          Most cited references100

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the STOP-NIDDM randomised trial.

          The worldwide increase in type 2 diabetes mellitus is becoming a major health concern. We aimed to assess the effect of acarbose in preventing or delaying conversion of impaired glucose tolerance to type 2 diabetes. In a multicentre, placebo-controlled randomised trial, we randomly allocated patients with impaired glucose tolerance to 100 mg acarbose or placebo three times daily. The primary endpoint was development of diabetes on the basis of a yearly oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Analyses were by intention to treat. We randomly allocated 714 patients with impaired glucose tolerance to acarbose and 715 to placebo. We excluded 61 (4%) patients because they did not have impaired glucose tolerance or had no postrandomisation data. 211 (31%) of 682 patients in the acarbose group and 130 (19%) of 686 on placebo discontinued treatment early. 221 (32%) patients randomised to acarbose and 285 (42%) randomised to placebo developed diabetes (relative hazard 0.75 [95% CI 0.63-0.90]; p=0.0015). Furthermore, acarbose significantly increased reversion of impaired glucose tolerance to normal glucose tolerance (p<0.0001). At the end of the study, treatment with placebo for 3 months was associated with an increase in conversion of impaired glucose tolerance to diabetes. The most frequent side-effects to acarbose treatment were flatulence and diarrhoea. Acarbose could be used, either as an alternative or in addition to changes in lifestyle, to delay development of type 2 diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of rosiglitazone on the frequency of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose: a randomised controlled trial.

            Rosiglitazone is a thiazolidinedione that reduces insulin resistance and might preserve insulin secretion. The aim of this study was to assess prospectively the drug's ability to prevent type 2 diabetes in individuals at high risk of developing the condition. 5269 adults aged 30 years or more with impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, or both, and no previous cardiovascular disease were recruited from 191 sites in 21 countries and randomly assigned to receive rosiglitazone (8 mg daily; n=2365) or placebo (2634) and followed for a median of 3 years. The primary outcome was a composite of incident diabetes or death. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00095654. At the end of study, 59 individuals had dropped out from the rosiglitazone group and 46 from the placebo group. 306 (11.6%) individuals given rosiglitazone and 686 (26.0%) given placebo developed the composite primary outcome (hazard ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.35-0.46; p<0.0001); 1330 (50.5%) individuals in the rosiglitazone group and 798 (30.3%) in the placebo group became normoglycaemic (1.71, 1.57-1.87; p<0.0001). Cardiovascular event rates were much the same in both groups, although 14 (0.5%) participants in the rosiglitazone group and two (0.1%) in the placebo group developed heart failure (p=0.01). Rosiglitazone at 8 mg daily for 3 years substantially reduces incident type 2 diabetes and increases the likelihood of regression to normoglycaemia in adults with impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, or both.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of abdominal adiposity and overall obesity in predicting risk of type 2 diabetes among men.

              Obesity is a strong risk factor for type 2 diabetes. However, few studies have compared the predictive power of overall obesity with that of central obesity. The cutoffs for waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) as measures of abdominal adiposity remain controversial. The objective was to compare body mass index (BMI), WC, and WHR in predicting type 2 diabetes. A prospective cohort study (Health Professionals Follow-Up Study) of 27 270 men was conducted. WC, WHR, and BMI were assessed at baseline. Covariates and potential confounders were assessed repeatedly during the follow-up. During 13 y of follow-up, we documented 884 incident type 2 diabetes cases. Age-adjusted relative risks (RRs) across quintiles of WC were 1.0, 2.0, 2.7, 5.0, and 12.0; those of WHR were 1.0, 2.1, 2.7, 3.6, and 6.9; and those of BMI were 1.0, 1.1, 1.8, 2.9, and 7.9 (P for trend /=24.8), WC (>/=94 cm), and WHR (>/=0.94) were 82.5%, 83.6%, and 74.1%, respectively. The corresponding proportions were 78.9%, 50.5%, and 65.7% according to the recommended cutoffs. Both overall and abdominal adiposity strongly and independently predict risk of type 2 diabetes. WC is a better predictor than is WHR. The currently recommended cutoff for WC of 102 cm for men may need to be reevaluated; a lower cutoff may be more appropriate.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Epidemiol Rev
                epirev
                epirev
                Epidemiologic Reviews
                Oxford University Press
                0193-936X
                1478-6729
                July 2011
                27 May 2011
                27 May 2011
                : 33
                : 1
                : 46-62
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to Professor Matthias B. Schulze, Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558 Nuthetal, Germany (e-mail: mschulze@ 123456dife.de ).
                Article
                10.1093/epirev/mxq019
                3132807
                21622851
                40da0db5-2862-41ad-9a54-8cb56e914de0
                Epidemiologic Reviews © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 12 November 2010
                Categories
                Articles

                Public health
                roc curve,sensitivity and specificity,predictive value of tests,diabetes mellitus, type 2,risk assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article