Screening for Diabetes in an Outpatient Clinic Population
BACKGROUND: Opportunistic disease screening is the routine, asymptomatic disease screening of patients at the time of a physician encounter for other reasons. While the prevalence of unrecognized diabetes in community populations is well known, the prevalence in clinical populations is unknown. OBJE...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2002-01, Vol.17 (1), p.23-28 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | BACKGROUND: Opportunistic disease screening is the routine, asymptomatic disease screening of patients at the time of a physician encounter for other reasons. While the prevalence of unrecognized diabetes in community populations is well known, the prevalence in clinical populations is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence, predictors, and clinical severity of unrecognized diabetes among outpatients at a major medical center.
DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross‐sectional observational study at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
SUBJECTS: Outpatients without recognized diabetes (N = 1,253).
METHODS: We screened patients for diabetes by using an initial random Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement, and then obtaining follow‐up fasting plasma glucose (FPG) for all subjects with HbA1c ≥6.0%. A case of unrecognized diabetes was defined as either HbA1c ≥7.0% or FPG ≥7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL). Height and weight were obtained for all subjects. We also obtained resting blood pressure, fasting lipids, and urine protein in subjects with HbA1c ≥6.0%.
RESULTS: The prevalence of unrecognized diabetes was 4.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4 to 5.7). Factors associated with unrecognized diabetes were the diagnosis of hypertension (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.5; P = .004), weight >120% of ideal (adjusted OR, 2.2; P = .02), and history of a parent or sibling with diabetes (adjusted OR, 1.7; P = .06). Having a primary care provider did not raise or lower the risk for unrecognized diabetes (P = .73). Based on the new diagnosis, most patients (61%) found to have diabetes required a change in treatment either of their blood sugar or comorbid hypertension or hyperlipidemia in order to achieve targets recommended in published treatment guidelines. Patients reporting a primary care provider were no less likely to require a change in treatment (P = .20).
CONCLUSIONS: If diabetes screening is an effective intervention, opportunistic screening for diabetes may be the preferred method for screening, because there is substantial potential for case‐finding in a medical center outpatient setting. A majority of patients with diabetes diagnosed at opportunistic screening will require a change in treatment of blood sugar, blood pressure, or lipids to receive optimal care. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0884-8734 1525-1497 |
DOI: | 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10420.x |