Differences in response and participation between the HbA1c group and the OGTT group.

<p>OGTT group = people offered screening by means of an oral glucose tolerance test; HbA1c group = people offered screening by means of a glycated hemoglobin measurement; Adjusted OR = odds ratio for response or participation, adjusted for age and sex; CI = confidence interval.</p

Estimation of the percentage of the total of cases with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in the population detected in a 18–60 year old South Asian population in The Hague.

<p>Overall prevalence = prevalence based on combined OGTT and HbA1c measurement. OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin measurement; CI = 95%- confidence interval.</p

Reasons for non-response in the HbA1c group and the OGTT group.

<p>OGTT group = people offered screening by means of an oral glucose tolerance test; HbA1c group = people offered screening by means of a glycated hemoglobin measurement; Not eligible = outside age range, longterm illness, currently pregnant, already participating in other research project(s), moved away from The Hague; Unknown = no contact established or no reason provided during telephone contact or on reply card; OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test.</p

The Uptake of Screening for Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes by Means of Glycated Hemoglobin versus the Oral Glucose Tolerance Test among 18 to 60-Year-Old People of South Asian Origin: A Comparative Study

<div><p>Background</p><p>Direct comparisons of the effect of a glycated haemoglobin measurement or an oral glucose tolerance test on the uptake and yield of screening in people of South Asian origin have not been made. We evaluated this in 18 to 60-year-old South Asian Surinamese.</p><p>Materials and Methods</p><p>We invited 3173 South Asian Surinamese for an oral glucose tolerance test between June 18^th 2009- December 31^st 2009 and 2012 for a glycated hemoglobin measurement between April 19^th 2010-November 11^th, 2010. Participants were selected from 48 general practices in The Hague, The Netherlands. We used mixed models regression to analyse differences in response and participation between the groups. We described differences in characteristics of participants and calculated the yield as the percentage of all cases identified, if all invitees had been offered screening with the specified method.</p><p>Results</p><p>The response and participation in the glycated hemoglobin group was higher than in the group offered an oral glucose tolerance test (participation 23.9 vs. 19.3; OR: 1.30, 95%-confidence interval1.01–1.69). After adjustment for age and sex, characteristics of participants were similar for both groups. Overall, glycated hemoglobin identified a similar percentage of type 2 diabetes cases but a higher percentage of prediabetes cases, in the population than the oral glucose tolerance test.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>We found that glycated hemoglobin and the oral glucose tolerance test may be equally efficient for identification of type 2 diabetes in populations of South Asian origin. However, for programs aimed at identifying people at high risk of type 2 diabetes (i.e. with prediabetes), the oral glucose tolerance test may be a less efficient choice than glycated hemoglobin.</p></div