Impact of changes in diabetes screening guidelines on testing eligibility and potential yield among adults without diagnosed diabetes in the United States

Prevalence of Testing for Diabetes Among US Adults With Overweight or Obesity, 2016-2019

Introduction

Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening every 3 years for abnormal blood glucose among adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity. Using IQVIA Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records, we estimated the proportion of adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity who received blood glucose testing within 3 years from baseline in 2016.

Methods

We identified 1,338,509 adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity in 2016 and without pre-existing diabetes. We included adults whose records were present in the data set for at least 2 years before their index body mass index (BMI) in 2016 and 3 years after the index BMI (2017-2019), during which we examined the occurrence of blood glucose testing. We calculated the unadjusted and adjusted prevalence of receiving blood glucose testing.

Results

The unadjusted prevalence of receiving blood glucose testing was 33.4% when it was defined as having a hemoglobin A1c or fasting plasma glucose measure. The unadjusted prevalence was 74.3% when we expanded the definition of testing to include random plasma glucose and unspecified glucose measures. Adults with obesity were more likely to receive the test than those with overweight. Men (vs women) and adults aged 50 to 59 years (vs other age groups) had higher testing rates.

Conclusion

Our findings could inform clinical and public health promotion efforts to improve screening for blood glucose levels among adults with overweight or obesity.

Improving Diabetes Screening in the Primary Care Clinic

BACKGROUND

In our suburban primary care clinic, the average rate of screening for diabetes among eligible patients was only 51%, similar to national screening data. We conducted a quality improvement project to increase this rate.

METHODS

During the 6-month preintervention phase, we collected baseline data on the percentage of eligible patients screened per week (percentage of patients with hemoglobin A1c checked in the prior 3 years out of patients eligible for screening who completed a visit during the week). We then implemented a two-phase intervention. In phase 1 (approximately 8 months), we generated an electronic health record (EHR) report to identify eligible patients and pended laboratory orders for physicians to sign. In phase 2 (approximately 3 months), we replaced the phase 1 intervention with an EHR clinical decision support tool that automatically identifies eligible patients. We compared screening rates in the preintervention vs. intervention period. For phase 1, we also assessed laboratory completion rates and the laboratory results. We surveyed physicians regarding intervention acceptability and satisfaction at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months during the intervention period.

RESULTS

The weekly percentage of patients screened increased from an average of 51% in the preintervention phase to 65% in the intervention phase (p < 0.001). During phase 1, most patients underwent laboratory blood testing as recommended (83% within 3 months), and results were consistent with prediabetes in 23% and with diabetes in 4%. Overall, most physicians believed that the intervention appropriately identified patients due for screening and was helpful (100% of respondents agreed at 9 months vs. 71% at 3 months).

CONCLUSION

We successfully implemented a systematic screening intervention involving a manual workflow and EHR tool and improved diabetes screening rates in our clinic.

Clinical performance and health equity implications of the American Diabetes Association's 2023 screening recommendation for prediabetes and diabetes

Introduction

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for prediabetes and diabetes (dysglycemia) starting at age 35, or younger than 35 years among adults with overweight or obesity and other risk factors. Diabetes risk differs by sex, race, and ethnicity, but performance of the recommendation in these sociodemographic subgroups is unknown.

Methods

Nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2015-March 2020) were analyzed from 5,287 nonpregnant US adults without diagnosed diabetes. Screening eligibility was based on age, measured body mass index, and the presence of diabetes risk factors. Dysglycemia was defined by fasting plasma glucose ≥100mg/dL (≥5.6 mmol/L) or haemoglobin A1c ≥5.7% (≥39mmol/mol). The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the ADA screening criteria were examined by sex, race, and ethnicity.

Results

An estimated 83.1% (95% CI=81.2-84.7) of US adults were eligible for screening according to the 2023 ADA recommendation. Overall, ADA's screening criteria exhibited high sensitivity [95.0% (95% CI=92.7-96.6)] and low specificity [27.1% (95% CI=24.5-29.9)], which did not differ by race or ethnicity. Sensitivity was higher among women [97.8% (95% CI=96.6-98.6)] than men [92.4% (95% CI=88.3-95.1)]. Racial and ethnic differences in sensitivity and specificity among men were statistically significant (P=0.04 and P=0.02, respectively). Among women, guideline performance did not differ by race and ethnicity.

Discussion

The ADA screening criteria exhibited high sensitivity for all groups and was marginally higher in women than men. Racial and ethnic differences in guideline performance among men were small and unlikely to have a significant impact on health equity. Future research could examine adoption of this recommendation in practice and examine its effects on treatment and clinical outcomes by sex, race, and ethnicity.