Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2024
HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels are equally related to incident cardiovascular risk in a high CVD risk population without known diabetes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Been Riemer A, Noordstar Ellen, Helmink Marga A G, van Sloten Thomas T, de Ranitz-Greven Wendela L, van Beek André P, Houweling Sebastiaan T, van Dijk Peter R, Westerink Jan, UCC-SMART Study Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Whether screen-detected T2DM, based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or on HbA1c, are associated with different risks of incident CVD in high-risk populations and which one is preferable for diabetes screening in these populations, remains unclear.
METHODS: A total of 8,274 high-risk CVD participants were included from the UCC-SMART cohort. Participants were divided into groups based on prior T2DM diagnosis, and combinations of elevated/non-elevated FPG and HbA1c (cut-offs at 7 mmol/L and 48 mmol/mol, respectively): Group 0: known T2DM; group 1: elevated FPG/HbA1c; group 2: elevated FPG, non-elevated HbA1c; group 3: non-elevated FPG, elevated HbA1c; group 1 + 2: elevated FPG, regardless of HbA1c; group 1 + 3: elevated HbA1c, regardless of FPG; and group 4 (reference), non-elevated FPG/HbA1c.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 6.3 years (IQR 3.3-9.8), 712 cardiovascular events occurred. Compared to the reference (group 4), group 0 was at increased risk (HR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.16-1.68), but group 1 (HR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.62-2.18), 2 (HR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.84-1.67), 3 (HR 0.61; 95 % CI 0.15-2.44), 1 + 2 (HR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.86-1.59) and 1 + 3 (HR 1.01; 95 % CI 0.57-1.79) were not. However, spline interpolation showed a linearly increasing risk with increasing HbA1c/FPG, but did not allow for identification of other cut-off points.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on current cut-offs, FPG and HbA1c at screening were equally related to incident CVD in high-risk populations without known T2DM. Hence, neither FPG, nor HbA1c, is preferential for diabetes screening in this population with respect to risk of incident CVD.
METHODS: A total of 8,274 high-risk CVD participants were included from the UCC-SMART cohort. Participants were divided into groups based on prior T2DM diagnosis, and combinations of elevated/non-elevated FPG and HbA1c (cut-offs at 7 mmol/L and 48 mmol/mol, respectively): Group 0: known T2DM; group 1: elevated FPG/HbA1c; group 2: elevated FPG, non-elevated HbA1c; group 3: non-elevated FPG, elevated HbA1c; group 1 + 2: elevated FPG, regardless of HbA1c; group 1 + 3: elevated HbA1c, regardless of FPG; and group 4 (reference), non-elevated FPG/HbA1c.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 6.3 years (IQR 3.3-9.8), 712 cardiovascular events occurred. Compared to the reference (group 4), group 0 was at increased risk (HR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.16-1.68), but group 1 (HR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.62-2.18), 2 (HR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.84-1.67), 3 (HR 0.61; 95 % CI 0.15-2.44), 1 + 2 (HR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.86-1.59) and 1 + 3 (HR 1.01; 95 % CI 0.57-1.79) were not. However, spline interpolation showed a linearly increasing risk with increasing HbA1c/FPG, but did not allow for identification of other cut-off points.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on current cut-offs, FPG and HbA1c at screening were equally related to incident CVD in high-risk populations without known T2DM. Hence, neither FPG, nor HbA1c, is preferential for diabetes screening in this population with respect to risk of incident CVD.