Comparison of 3 risk factor-based screening tools for the identification of prediabetes

J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020 May-Jun;60(3):481-484. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2019.11.015. Epub 2019 Dec 27.

Abstract

Objective: To compare risk factor-based screening tools for identifying prediabetes.

Methods: Participants in an employer-based wellness program were tested for glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) at a regularly scheduled appointment, and prediabetes risk factor information was collected. The likelihood of having prediabetes and the need for laboratory testing were determined based on 3 risk factor-based screening tools: the Prediabetes Screening Test (PST), Prediabetes Risk Test (PRT), and 2016 American Diabetes Association guidelines (ADA2016). The results from the screening tools were compared with those of the A1C test. The predictive ability of the PST, PRT, and ADA2016 were compared using logistic regression. Results were validated with data from a secondary population.

Results: Of the 3 risk factor-based tools examined, the PRT demonstrated the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for identifying prediabetes. From July 2016 to March 2017, 740 beneficiaries of an employer-sponsored wellness program had their A1C tested and provided risk factor information. The population prevalence of prediabetes was 9.3%. Analysis of a second independent population with a prediabetes prevalence of more than 50% of confirmed PRT's superiority despite differences in the calculated sensitivity and specificity for each population.

Conclusion: Because PRT predicts prediabetes better than PST or ADA2016, it should be used preferentially.

Publication types

  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

MeSH terms

  • Blood Glucose
  • Glycated Hemoglobin* / analysis
  • Humans
  • Mass Screening*
  • Prediabetic State* / diagnosis
  • Prediabetic State* / epidemiology
  • Risk Factors
  • Sensitivity and Specificity

Substances

  • Blood Glucose
  • Glycated Hemoglobin A