OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and relative risk of type 2 diabetes defined by the newly proposed HbA(1c) diagnostic criteria in groups categorized by different baseline HbA(1c) levels. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using data from the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk cohort with repeat HbA(1c) measurements, we estimated the prevalence of known and previously undiagnosed diabetes at baseline (baseline HbA(1c) ≥6.5%) and the incidence of diabetes over 3 years. We also examined the incidence and corresponding odds ratios (ORs) by different levels of baseline HbA(1c). Incident diabetes was defined clinically (self-report at follow-up, prescribed diabetes medication, or inclusion on a diabetes register) or biochemically (HbA(1c) ≥6.5% at the second health assessment), or both. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of diabetes was 4.7%; 41% of prevalent cases were previously undiagnosed. Among 5,735 participants without diabetes at baseline (identified clinically or using HbA(1c) criteria, or both), 72 developed diabetes over 3 years (1.3% [95% CI 1.0-1.5]), of which 49% were identified using the HbA(1c) criteria. In 6% of the total population, the baseline HbA(1c) was 6.0-6.4%; 36% of incident cases arose in this group. The incidence of diabetes in this group was 15 times higher than in those with a baseline HbA(1c) of <5.0% (OR 15.5 [95% CI 7.2-33.3]). CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative incidence of diabetes defined using a newly proposed HbA(1c) threshold in this middle-aged British cohort was 1.3% over 3 years. Targeting interventions to individuals with an HbA(1c) of 6.0-6.4% might represent a feasible preventive strategy, although complementary population-based preventive strategies are also needed to reduce the growing burden of diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chamnan et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: