OBJECTIVE: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recently recommended HbA1c for diagnosing diabetes as an alternative to glucose-based criteria. We compared the new HbA1c-based criteria for diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes with the glucose-based criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the population-based German KORA surveys (S4/F4) 1,764 non-diabetic participants aged 31-60 years and 896 participants aged 61-75 years underwent measurements of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-h glucose. RESULTS: Only 20% of all subjects diagnosed with diabetes by glucose or HbA1c criteria had diabetes by both criteria; for prediabetes, the corresponding figure was 23%. Using HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, the prevalence of diabetes was strongly reduced compared to the glucose criteria (0.7% instead of 2.3% in the middle-aged, 2.9% instead of 7.9% in the older subjects). Only 32.0% (middle-aged) and 43.2% (older group) of isolated impaired glucose tolerance (i-IGT) cases were detected by the HbA1c criterion (5.7% ≤ HbA1c < 6.5%). CONCLUSION: By glucose and the new HbA1c diabetes criteria, different subjects are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in middle-aged as well as older subjects. The new HbA1c criterion lacks sensitivity for impaired glucose tolerance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rathmann et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: