Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

NR Waugh ,*, D Shyangdan , S Taylor-Phillips , G Suri , B Hall

Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been increasing, owing to increases in overweight and obesity, decreasing physical activity and the changing demographic structure of the population. People can develop T2DM without symptoms and up to 20% may be undiagnosed. They may have diabetic complications, such as retinopathy, by the time they are diagnosed, or may suffer a heart attack, without warning. Undiagnosed diabetes can be detected by raised blood glucose levels.

AIM

The aim of this review was to provide an update for the UK National Screening Committee (NSC) on screening for T2DM.

METHODS

As this review was undertaken to update a previous Health Technology Assessment review published in 2007, and a more recent Scottish Public Health Network review, searches for evidence were restricted from 2009 to end of January 2012, with selected later studies added. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDLINE-in-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index. The case for screening was considered against the criteria used by the NSC to assess proposed population screening programmes.

RESULTS

Population screening for T2DM does not meet all of the NSC criteria. Criterion 12, on optimisation of existing management, has not been met. A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) gives details of shortcomings. Criterion 13 requires evidence from high-quality randomised controlled trials that screening is beneficial. This has not been met. The Ely trial of screening showed no benefit. The ADDITION trial was not a trial of screening, but showed no benefit in cardiovascular outcomes from intensive management in people with screen-detected T2DM. Criterion 18 on staffing and facilities does not appear to have been met, according to the NAO report. Criterion 19 requires that all other options, including prevention, should have been considered. A large proportion of cases of T2DM could be prevented if people avoided becoming overweight or obese. The first stage of selection would use risk factors, using data held on general practitioner computer systems, using the QDiabetes Risk Score, or by sending out questionnaires, using the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC). Those at high risk would have a measure of blood glucose. There is no perfect screening test. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing has advantages in not requiring a fasting sample, and because it is a predictor of vascular disease across a wider range than just the diabetic one. However, it lacks sensitivity and would miss some people with diabetes. Absolute values of HbA1c may be more useful as part of overall risk assessment than a dichotomous 'diabetes or not diabetes' diagnosis. The oral glucose tolerance test is more sensitive, but inconvenient, more costly, has imperfect reproducibility and is less popular, meaning that uptake would be lower.

CONCLUSIONS

When considered against the NSC criteria, the case for screening is less strong than it was in the 2007 review. The main reason is the absence of cardiovascular benefit in the two trials published since the previous review. There is a case for selective screening as part of overall vascular risk assessment. Population screening for T2DM does not meet all of the NSC criteria.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been increasing, owing to increases in overweight and obesity, decreasing physical activity and the changing demographic structure of the population. People can develop T2DM without symptoms and up to 20% may be undiagnosed. They may have diabetic complications, such as retinopathy, by the time they are diagnosed, or may suffer a heart attack, without warning. Undiagnosed diabetes can be detected by raised blood glucose levels.

AIM

The aim of this review was to provide an update for the UK National Screening Committee (NSC) on screening for T2DM.

METHODS

As this review was undertaken to update a previous Health Technology Assessment review published in 2007, and a more recent Scottish Public Health Network review, searches for evidence were restricted from 2009 to end of January 2012, with selected later studies added. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDLINE-in-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index. The case for screening was considered against the criteria used by the NSC to assess proposed population screening programmes.

RESULTS

Population screening for T2DM does not meet all of the NSC criteria. Criterion 12, on optimisation of existing management, has not been met. A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) gives details of shortcomings. Criterion 13 requires evidence from high-quality randomised controlled trials that screening is beneficial. This has not been met. The Ely trial of screening showed no benefit. The ADDITION trial was not a trial of screening, but showed no benefit in cardiovascular outcomes from intensive management in people with screen-detected T2DM. Criterion 18 on staffing and facilities does not appear to have been met, according to the NAO report. Criterion 19 requires that all other options, including prevention, should have been considered. A large proportion of cases of T2DM could be prevented if people avoided becoming overweight or obese. The first stage of selection would use risk factors, using data held on general practitioner computer systems, using the QDiabetes Risk Score, or by sending out questionnaires, using the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC). Those at high risk would have a measure of blood glucose. There is no perfect screening test. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing has advantages in not requiring a fasting sample, and because it is a predictor of vascular disease across a wider range than just the diabetic one. However, it lacks sensitivity and would miss some people with diabetes. Absolute values of HbA1c may be more useful as part of overall risk assessment than a dichotomous 'diabetes or not diabetes' diagnosis. The oral glucose tolerance test is more sensitive, but inconvenient, more costly, has imperfect reproducibility and is less popular, meaning that uptake would be lower.

CONCLUSIONS

When considered against the NSC criteria, the case for screening is less strong than it was in the 2007 review. The main reason is the absence of cardiovascular benefit in the two trials published since the previous review. There is a case for selective screening as part of overall vascular risk assessment. Population screening for T2DM does not meet all of the NSC criteria.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions