4.7 Article

Differences in A1C by race and ethnicity among patients with impaired glucose tolerance in the diabetes prevention program

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 2453-2457

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc06-2003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [U01 DK048489-06, U01 DK048489] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - We sought to examine racial and ethnic differences in At C in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We studied 3,819 individuals aged >= 25 years with IGT who were found to be eligible to participant in the Diabetes Prevention Program. AIC was compared among five racial and ethnic groups before and after adjustment for factors that differed among groups or might affect glycemia including age, sex, education, marital status, blood pressure, adiposity (BMI and waist circumference), hematocrit, fasting and post-glucose load glucose levels, glucose area under the curve (AUC), beta-cell function, and insulin resistance. RESULTS - Mean +/- SD AIC was 5.91 +/- 0.50%. Among whites, AIC was 5.80 +/- 0.44%, among Hispanics 5.89 +/- 0.46%, among Asian 5.96 +/- 0.45%, among American Indians 5.96 +/- 0.46%, and among blacks 6.19 +/- 0.59%. Age, sex, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, BMI, fasting glucose, glucose AUC, corrected insulin response, and insulin resistance were eachindependent predictors of AIC. Adjusting for these and other factors, mean AIC levels were 5.78% forwhites, 5.93% for Hispanics, 6.00% forAsians, 6.12% for American Indians, and 6.18% for blacks (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS - AIC levels are higher among U.S. racial and ethnic minority groups with IGT after adjustment for factors likely to affect glycemia. Among patients with IGT, AlC may not be valid for assessing and comparing glycemic control across racial and ethnic groups or as an indicator of health care disparities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available