Assessment of response rates and yields for Two opportunistic Tools for Early detection of Non-diabetic hyperglycaemia and Diabetes (ATTEND). A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

A systematic review of diabetes risk assessment tools in sub-Saharan Africa

Objectives

To systematically review all current studies on diabetes risk assessment tools used in SSA to diagnose diabetes in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

Methods

Tools were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from January 2010 to January 2020. The search included articles reporting the use of diabetes risk assessment tool to detect individuals with type 2 diabetes in SSA. A standardized protocol was used for data extraction (registry #177726).

Results

Of the 825 articles identified, 39 articles met the inclusion criteria, and three articles reported tools used in SSA population but developed for the Western population. None was validated in SSA population. All but three articles were observational studies (136 and 58,657 study participants aged between the ages of 15 and 85 years). The Finnish Medical Association risk tool, World Health Organization (WHO) STEPS instrument, General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ), Rapid Eating and Activity Assessment for Patients (REAP), and an anthropometric tool were the most frequently used non-invasive tools in SSA. The accuracy of the tools was measured using sensitivity, specificity, or area under the receiver operating curve. The anthropometric predictor variables identified included age, body mass index, waist circumference, positive family of diabetes, and activity levels.

Conclusions

This systematic review demonstrated a paucity of validated diabetes risk assessment tools for SSA. There remains a need for the development and validation of a tool for the rapid identification of diabetes for targeted interventions.

Evaluation and refinement of the PRESTARt tool for identifying 12-14 year olds at high lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to a clinicians assessment of risk: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Traditionally Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) was associated with older age, but is now being increasingly diagnosed in younger populations due to the increasing prevalence of obesity and inactivity. We aimed to evaluate whether a tool developed for community use to identify adolescents at high lifetime risk of developing T2DM agreed with a risk assessment conducted by a clinician using data collected from five European countries. We also assessed whether the tool could be simplified.

METHODS

To evaluate the tool we collected data from 636 adolescents aged 12-14 years from five European countries. Each participant's data were then assessed by two clinicians independently, who judged each participant to be at either low or high risk of developing T2DM in their lifetime. This was used as the gold standard to which the tool was evaluated and refined.

RESULTS

The refined tool categorised adolescents at high risk if they were overweight/obese and had at least one other risk factor (High waist circumference, family history of diabetes, parental obesity, not breast fed, high sugar intake, high screen time, low physical activity and low fruit and vegetable intake). Of those found to be at high risk by the clinicians, 93% were also deemed high risk by the tool. The specificity shows that 67% of those deemed at low risk by the clinicians were also found to be a low risk by the tool.

CONCLUSIONS

We have evaluated a tool for identifying adolescents with risk factors associated with the development of T2DM in the future. Future work to externally validate the tool using prospective data including T2DM incidence is required.

Diabetes Screening Through Community Pharmacies in England: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

Community pharmacies are commonly used to screen for patients with diabetes. The aim of this paper is to estimate the cost per test and cost per appropriately referred patient from a pharmacy perspective using a one-year decision tree model. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the effect of geographical location and patient self-referral rate. Data was used from 164 patients screened and located in an area with average social deprivation and largely white European inhabitants and 172 patients in an area with higher social deprivation (lower than average ability to access society’s resources) and a mixed ethnicity population in England. The diabetes screening consisted of initial risk assessment via questionnaire followed by HbA1c test for those identified as high risk. The cost per person screened was estimated as £28.65. The cost per appropriately referred patient with type 2 diabetes was estimated to range from £7638 to £11,297 in deprived mixed ethnicity and non-deprived areas respectively. This increased to £12,730 and £18,828, respectively, if only 60% of patients referred chose to inform their general practitioner (GP). The cost per test and identification rates through community pharmacies was similar to that reported through medical practices. Locating services in areas of suspected greater diabetes prevalence and increasing the proportion of patients who follow pharmacist advice to attend their medical practice improves cost-effectiveness.

External national validation of the Leicester Self-Assessment score for Type 2 diabetes using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

AIMS

To validate the Leicester Self-Assessment score using a representative English dataset for detecting prevalent non-diabetic hyperglycaemia or undiagnosed Type 2 diabetes (defined as HbA_1c ≥6.0%) and for identifying those who may go on to develop Type 2 diabetes within 10 years.

METHODS

Data were taken from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, a nationally representative dataset of people aged ≥50 years. The area under the receiver-operator curve and performance metrics for the score at the recommended score threshold (≥16), were calculated for the outcomes of HbA_1c ≥42 mmol/mol (6.0%) at baseline and self-reported Type 2 diabetes within 10 years in those aged 50-75 years at baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 3203 individuals had a baseline HbA_1c measurement, of whom 247 (7.7%) had an HbA_1c concentration ≥42 mmol/mol (6.0%). The area under the receiver-operator curve was 69.4% (95% CI 66.0-72.9) for baseline HbA_1c ≥42 mmol/mol. A total of 3550 individuals had diabetes status recorded at 10 years, of whom 324 (9.1%) were diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes within this time; the area under the receiver-operator curve for this outcome was 74.9% (95% CI 72.4-77.5). The score threshold of ≥16 had a sensitivity of 89.2% (95% CI 85.3-92.4) and a specificity of 42.3% (95% CI 40.5-44.0) for Type 2 diabetes within 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The Leicester Self-Assessment score is validated for use across England to identify people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia or undiagnosed Type 2 diabetes. Those with a high score are at high risk of developing diabetes in the future.

Skin autofluorescence improves the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score in the detection of diabetes in a large population-based cohort: The LifeLines Cohort Study

AIM

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether skin autofluorescence would improve the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) in detecting undiagnosed diabetes in a large population-based cohort.

METHODS

Included were participants from the Dutch LifeLines Cohort Study. Skin autofluorescence was assessed in an unselected subset of participants using the AGE Reader. After the exclusion of participants with previously diagnosed diabetes (n=1635), pregnant women (n=58) and those using corticosteroids (n=345), 79,248 subjects were eligible for analysis. Diabetes was defined as fasting plasma glucose ≥7.0mmol/L, non-fasting plasma glucose ≥11.1mmol/L or HbA1c ≥6.5% (48mmol/mol).

RESULTS

Diabetes was detected in 1042 participants (aged 55±12 years; 54% male). Skin autofluorescence improved the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the FINDRISC model from 0.802 to 0.811 (P<0.001). Furthermore, the addition of skin autofluorescence to FINDRISC reclassified 8-15% of all participants into more accurate risk categories (NRI: 0.080, 95% CI: 0.052-0.110). The proportion of reclassified participants was especially high (>30%) in the intermediate (1% to <5% and 5% to<10%) risk categories. When skin autofluorescence was added to a simplified model (age+body mass index), its discriminatory performance was similar to the full model+skin autofluorescence (AUROC: 0.806, P=0.062).

CONCLUSION

Skin autofluorescence is a non-invasive tool that can be used to further improve the FINDRISC for diabetes detection. The new resultant model is especially useful for reclassifying people in the intermediate-risk categories, where additional blood glucose testing is needed to confirm the presence of diabetes.