medigraphic.com

2009, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2009; 47 (4)

The Importance of Updating Criteria of Altered Fasting Glucose Levels in Mexico

Pérez-Jáuregui J, Reza-Albarrán A, González-Cardel AM, Olay-Fuentes G, Fagundo-Sierra R, Cortez-Gómez R

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 357-362
PDF size: 40.52 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: to evaluate the impact of applying the 2003-ADA-proposed lower normality value of fasting glucose (FG) on impaired fasting glucose (IFG), prevalence and the agreement between diagnostic categories from ADA-2003 FG values and WHO two hours oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) current criteria in a Mexican population with suspected diabetes.
Methods: a retrospective cross sectional study was undertaken. We analyzed fasting and 2 hours post load glucose values of 2062 patients and compared diagnostic categories on the basis of different criteria.
Results: considering fasting values, prevalence of IFG changed from 17.7 % to 41.3 % when applying ADA-1997 or ADA-2003 criteria, respectively. Furthermore, based on their OGTT values (WHO-1999), 63 % the 852 IFG patients identified by ADA-2003 criteria were reclassified as having diabetes (26.1 %) or IGT (36.9 %). A heavy kappa test showed a moderate diagonal agreement of 0.43260 (CI 95 % = 0.43214-0.43305) between diagnostic categories from ADA-2003 with FG and OGTT values and WHO current criteria.
Conclusions: the lower ADA-2003 criteria for IFG identifies a higher ratio of patients with IGT or DM.


REFERENCES

  1. The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997; 20(7):1183-1197.

  2. National Diabetes Data Group. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and other categories of glucose intolerance. Diabetes Care 1979;28 (12):1039-1057.

  3. World Health Organization. Diabetes mellitus: report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Org Tech Rep Ser 1985;727:1-113.

  4. DECODE Study Group on Behalf of the European Diabetes Epidemiology Study Group. Will new diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus change phenotype of patients with diabetes? Reanalysis of European epidemiological data. BMJ 1998;317 (7155):371-375.

  5. Gómez-Pérez FJ, Aguilar-Salinas CA, López-Alvarenga JC, Pérez-Jáuregui J, Guillén-Pineda LE, Rull JA. Lack of agreement between the World Health Organization category of impaired glucose tolerance and the American Diabetes Association category of impaired fasting glucose. Diabetes Care 1998;21(11):1886-1888.

  6. Larsson H, Berglund G, Lindgarde F, Ahren B. Comparison of ADA and WHO criteria for diagnosis and glucose intolerance (Letter). Diabetologia 1998;41(9):1124-1125.

  7. The Expert Committee in the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Follow-up report on the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2003;26(11):3160-3167.

  8. Davidson MB, Landsman PB, Alexander CM. Lowering the criterion for impaired fasting glucose will not provide clinical benefits. Diabetes Care 2003;26(123):3329-3330.

  9. Schriger DL, Lorber B. Lowering the cut point for impaired fasting glucose: where is the evidence? Where is the logic? Diabetes Care 2004;27 (2);592-601.

  10. Vaccaro O, Riccardi G. Changing the definition of impaired fasting glucose. Impact on the classification of individuals and risk definition. Diabetes Care 2005;28(7):1786-1788.

  11. Borch-Johnsen K, Colagiuri S, Balkau B, Glümer C, Carstensen B, Ramachandran A, et al. Creating a pandemic of prediabetes: the proposed new diagnostic criteria for impaired fasting glycaemia. Diabetologia 2004;47(8):1396-1402.

  12. Landis JR, Koch GC. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1):159-174.

  13. Guerrero-Romero F, Rodríguez-Morán M. Lowered criterion for normal fasting plasma glucose: impact on the detection of impaired glucose tolerance and metabolic syndrome. Arch Med Res 2006; 37(1):140-144.

  14. Gómez-Díaz R, Aguilar-Salinas CA, Morán-Villota S, Barradas-González R, Herrera-Márquez R, Cruz- López M, et al. Lack of agreement between the revised criteria of impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance in children with excess body weight. Diabetes Care 2004;27(9):2229-2233.

  15. Weyer C, Bogardus C, Pratley RE. Metabolic characteristics of individuals with impaired fas ting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes 1999;48(11):2197-2203.

  16. Davies MJ, Raymond NT, Day JL, Hales CN, Burden AC. Impaired glucose tolerance and fasting hyperglycaemia have different characteristics. Diabet Med 2000;17(6):433-440.

  17. Carnevale-Schianca GP, Rossi A, Sainaghi PP, Maduli E, Barttoli E. The significance of impaired fasting glucose versus impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Care 2003;26(5):1333-1337.

  18. Alberti GA. A desktop guide to type 2 diabetes mellitus: European Diabetes Policy Group 1998- 1999 International Diabetes Federation European Region. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 1999;1078 (7):390-420

  19. Robles-Osorio L, Aguilar-Salinas CA, Mehta R, Gómez-Pérez FJ, Rull JA. Analysis of fasting plasma glucose values for optimal detection of abnormal responses on the oral glucose tolerance test in at-risk study subjects. Endocr Pract 2007;13(6):583-589.

  20. Secretaría de Salud. Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-015-SSA2-1994, para la prevención, tratamiento y control de la diabetes mellitus en la atención primaria. México: Secretaria de Salud; 2000.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com