Prospective Test Performance of Nonfasting Biomarkers to Identify Dysglycemia in Children and Adolescents

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing Of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details Abstract

Introduction: Test performance screening measures for dysglycemia have not been evaluated prospectively in youth. This study evaluated the prospective test performance of random glucose (RG), 1-hour nonfasting glucose challenge test (1-h GCT), Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fructosamine (FA), and 1,5-Anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) for identifying dysglycemia. Methods: Youth ages 8-17 years with overweight or obesity (body mass index, BMI, ≥85th percentile) without known diabetes completed nonfasting tests at baseline (n=176) and returned an average of 1.1 years later for two formal fasting 2-hour oral glucose tolerance tests. Outcomes included glucose-defined dysglycemia (fasting plasma glucose ≥100 mg/dL or 2-hour plasma glucose ≥140 mg/dL) or elevated HbA1c (≥5.7%). Longitudinal test performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calculation of area under the curve (AUC). Results: Glucose-defined dysglycemia, elevated HbA1c, and either dysglycemia or elevated HbA1c were present in 15 (8.5%), 11 (6.3%), and 23 (13.1%) participants at baseline, and 16 (9.1%), 18 (10.3%), and 28 (15.9%) participants at follow-up. For prediction of glucose-defined dysglycemia at follow-up, RG, 1-h GCT, and HbA1c had similar performance (0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.80), 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.89), and 0.70 (95% CI 0.56-0.84)), while FA and 1,5-AG performed poorly. For prediction of HbA1c at follow-up, baseline HbA1c had strong performance (AUC 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98)), RG had moderate performance (AUC 0.67 (0.54-0.79)), while 1-h GCT, FA, and 1,5-AG performed poorly. Conclusion: HbA1c and nonfasting glucose tests had reasonable longitudinal discrimination identifying adolescents at risk for dysglycemia, but performance depended on outcome definition.

S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif