Review of methods for detecting glycemic disorders

Prediabetes (intermediate hyperglycemia) consists of two abnormalities, impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) detected by a standardized 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Individuals with isolated IGT or combined IFG and IGT have increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Diagnosing prediabetes early and accurately is critical in order to refer high-risk individuals for intensive lifestyle modification. However, there is currently no international consensus for diagnosing prediabetes with HbA1c or glucose measurements based upon American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria that identify different populations at risk for progressing to diabetes. Various caveats affecting the accuracy of interpreting the HbA1c including genetics complicate this further. This review describes established methods for detecting glucose disorders based upon glucose and HbA1c parameters as well as novel approaches including the 1-hour plasma glucose (1-h PG), glucose challenge test (GCT), shape of the glucose curve, genetics, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), measures of insulin secretion and sensitivity, metabolomics, and ancillary tools such as fructosamine, glycated albumin (GA), 1,5- anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG). Of the approaches considered, the 1-h PG has considerable potential as a biomarker for detecting glucose disorders if confirmed by additional data including health economic analysis. Whether the 1-h OGTT is superior to genetics and omics in providing greater precision for individualized treatment requires further investigation. These methods will need to demonstrate substantially superiority to simpler tools for detecting glucose disorders to justify their cost and complexity

The 1-h post-load plasma glucose as a novel biomarker for diagnosing dysglycemia.

Identifying the earliest moment for intervention to avert progression to prediabetes and diabetes in high-risk individuals is a substantial challenge. As β-cell function is already compromised in prediabetes, attention should therefore be focused on identifying high-risk individuals earlier in the so-called pre-prediabetes stage. Biomarkers to monitor progression and identify the time point at which β-cell dysfunction occurs are therefore critically needed. Large-scale population studies have consistently shown that the 1-h plasma glucose (1-h PG) ≥ 155 mg/dl (8.6 mmol/l) during the oral glucose tolerance test detected incident type 2 diabetes and associated complications earlier than fasting plasma glucose or 2-h plasma glucose levels. An elevated 1-h PG level appears to be a better alternative to HbA1c [5.7-6.4% (37-47 mmol/mol)] or traditional glucose criteria for identifying high-risk individuals at a stage when ß-cell function is substantially more intact than in prediabetes. Diagnosing high-risk individuals earlier proffers the opportunity for potentially reducing progression to diabetes, development of microvascular complications and mortality, thereby advancing benefit beyond that which has been demonstrated in global diabetes prevention programs

Pitfalls of HbA1c in the Diagnosis of Diabetes.

Many health care providers screen high-risk individuals exclusively with an HbA1c despite its insensitivity for detecting dysglycemia. The 2 cases presented describe the inherent caveats of interpreting HbA1c without performing an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The first case reflects the risk of overdiagnosing type 2 diabetes (T2D) in an older African American male in whom HbA1c levels, although variable, were primarily in the mid-prediabetes range (5.7-6.4% [39-46 mmol/mol]) for many years although the initial OGTT demonstrated borderline impaired fasting glucose with a fasting plasma glucose of 102 mg/dL [5.7 mmol/L]) without evidence for impaired glucose tolerance (2-hour glucose ≥140-199 mg/dl ([7.8-11.1 mmol/L]). Because subsequent HbA1c levels were diagnostic of T2D (6.5%-6.6% [48-49 mmol/mol]), a second OGTT performed was normal. The second case illustrates the risk of underdiagnosing T2D in a male with HIV having normal HbA1c levels over many years who underwent an OGTT when mild prediabetes (HbA1c = 5.7% [39 mmol/mol]) developed that was diagnostic of T2D. To avoid inadvertent mistreatment, it is therefore essential to perform an OGTT, despite its limitations, in high-risk individuals, particularly when glucose or fructosamine and HbA1c values are discordant. Innate differences in the relationship between fructosamine or fasting glucose to HbA1c are demonstrated by the glycation gap or hemoglobin glycation index

Reducing the prevalence of dysglycemia: is the time ripe to test the effectiveness of intervention in high-risk individuals with elevated 1 h post-load glucose levels?

Identifying the earliest time point on the prediabetic continuum is critical to avoid progressive deterioration in β-cell function. Progressively rising glucose levels even within the "normal range" occur considerably late in the evolution to diabetes thus presenting an important opportunity for earlier diagnosis, treatment, and possible reversal. An elevated 1 h postprandial glucose level, not detected by current diagnostic standards, may provide an opportunity for the early identification of those at risk. When the 1 h post-load glucose level is elevated, lifestyle intervention may have the greatest benefit for preserving β-cell function and prevent further progression to prediabetes and diabetes. In view of the considerable consistent epidemiologic data in large disparate populations supporting the predictive capacity of the1 h post-load value for predicting progression to diabetes and mortality, the time is therefore ripe to evaluate this hypothesis in a large, prospective multicenter randomized trial with lifestyle intervention

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health