4.3 Article

Contributions of Glucose and Hemoglobin A1c Measurements in Diabetes Screening

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 157, 期 1, 页码 1-4

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/AJCP/AQAB106

关键词

Glucose; Hemoglobin A(1c); HbA(1c); Diabetes; Screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although many health plans do not cover HbA1c testing for diabetes screening, more than 1 in 4 glucose screening patients 60 years of age or older with an in-range glucose result had a concurrent elevated HbA(1c) result.
Objectives: Given the long-term consequences of untreated diabetes, patients benefit from timely diagnoses. Payer policies often recognize glucose but not hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) for diabetes screening. This study evaluates the different information that glucose and HbA(1c) provide for diabetes screening. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of national clinical laboratory testing during 2020 when glucose and HbA(1c) were ordered for routine diabetes screening, excluding patients with known diabetes, out-of-range glucose, or metabolic syndrome. Results: Of 15.47 million glucose and HbA(1c) tests ordered simultaneously, 672,467 (4.35%) met screening inclusion criteria; 116,585 (17.3%) were excluded because of diabetes-related conditions or the specimen was nonfasting, leaving 555,882 result pairs. More than 1 in 4 patients 60 years of age or older with glucose within range had an elevated HbA(1c) level. HbA(1c) claims were denied more often for Medicare beneficiaries (38,918/65,273 [59.6%]) than for other health plans combined (23,234/291,764 [8.0%]). Conclusions: Although many health plans do not cover HbA1c testing for diabetes screening, more than 1 in 4 glucose screening patients 60 years of age or older with an in-range glucose result had a concurrent elevated HbA(1c) result. Guideline developers and health plans should explicitly recognize that glucose and HbA(1c) provide complementary information and together offer improved clinical utility for diabetes screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据