You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.
 

CME / ABIM MOC / CE

Is Age a Better Diabetes Screening Tool than Weight?

  • Authors: News Author: Marlene Busko; CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
  • CME / ABIM MOC / CE Released: 4/28/2023
  • Valid for credit through: 4/28/2024
Start Activity

  • Credits Available

    Physicians - maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™

    ABIM Diplomates - maximum of 0.25 ABIM MOC points

    Nurses - 0.25 ANCC Contact Hour(s) (0 contact hours are in the area of pharmacology)

    Physician Assistant - 0.25 AAPA hour(s) of Category I credit

    IPCE - 0.25 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit

    You Are Eligible For

    • Letter of Completion
    • ABIM MOC points

Target Audience and Goal Statement

This activity is intended for diabetologists/endocrinologists, family medicine/primary care clinicians, internists, public health and prevention officials, nurses, physician assistants, and other members of the health care team involved in type 2 diabetes (diabetes) screening.

The goal of this activity is for learners to be better able to describe the clinical performance of US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 and 2015 prediabetes and diabetes screening recommendations and alternative age and body mass index cutoffs in the US adult population overall, and separately by race and ethnicity.

Upon completion of this activity, participants will:

  • Assess the clinical performance of US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 and 2015 prediabetes and diabetes screening recommendations and alternative age and body mass index cutoffs in the US adult population overall, and separately by race and ethnicity, based on an analysis of nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data
  • Evaluate the clinical and public health implications of the clinical performance of US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 and 2015 prediabetes and diabetes screening recommendations and alternative age and body mass index cutoffs in the US adult population overall, and separately by race and ethnicity, based on an analysis of nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data
  • Outline implications for the healthcare team


Disclosures

Medscape, LLC requires every individual in a position to control educational content to disclose all financial relationships with ineligible companies that have occurred within the past 24 months. Ineligible companies are organizations whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, re-selling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

All relevant financial relationships for anyone with the ability to control the content of this educational activity are listed below and have been mitigated. Others involved in the planning of this activity have no relevant financial relationships.


News Author

  • Marlene Busko

    Freelance writer, Medscape

    Disclosures

    Marlene Busko has no relevant financial relationships.

CME Author

  • Laurie Barclay, MD

    Freelance writer and reviewer
    Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Laurie Barclay, MD, has no relevant financial relationships.

Editor/Nurse Planner

  • Leigh Schmidt, MSN, RN, CNE, CHCP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Leigh Schmidt, MSN, RN, CNE, CHCP, has no relevant financial relationships.

Compliance Reviewer

  • Amanda Jett, PharmD, BCACP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Amanda Jett, PharmD, BCACP, has no relevant financial relationships.

Peer Reviewer

This activity has been peer reviewed and the reviewer has no relevant financial relationships.


Accreditation Statements



In support of improving patient care, Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited with commendation by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

This activity was planned by and for the healthcare team, and learners will receive 0.25 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit for learning and change.

    For Physicians

  • Medscape, LLC designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 0.25 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider’s responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.

    The European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS)-European Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (EACCME) has an agreement of mutual recognition of continuing medical education (CME) credit with the American Medical Association (AMA). European physicians interested in converting AMA PRA Category 1 credit™ into European CME credit (ECMEC) should contact the UEMS (www.uems.eu).

    College of Family Physicians of Canada Mainpro+® participants may claim certified credits for any AMA PRA Category 1 credit(s)™, up to a maximum of 50 credits per five-year cycle. Any additional credits are eligible as non-certified credits. College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) members must log into Mainpro+® to claim this activity.

    Through an agreement between the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, medical practitioners participating in the Royal College MOC Program may record completion of accredited activities registered under the ACCME’s “CME in Support of MOC” program in Section 3 of the Royal College’s MOC Program.

    Contact This Provider

    For Nurses

  • Awarded 0.25 contact hour(s) of nursing continuing professional development for RNs and APNs; 0.00 contact hours are in the area of pharmacology.

    Contact This Provider

  • For Physician Assistants

    Medscape, LLC has been authorized by the American Academy of PAs (AAPA) to award AAPA Category 1 CME credit for activities planned in accordance with AAPA CME Criteria. This activity is designated for 0.25 AAPA Category 1 CME credits. Approval is valid until 04/28/2024. PAs should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation.

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]


Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page. To receive AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™, you must receive a minimum score of 75% on the post-test.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or printed out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. We encourage you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.

You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 6 years; at any point within this time period you can print out the tally as well as the certificates from the CME/CE Tracker.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.

CME / ABIM MOC / CE

Is Age a Better Diabetes Screening Tool than Weight?

Authors: News Author: Marlene Busko; CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MDFaculty and Disclosures

CME / ABIM MOC / CE Released: 4/28/2023

Valid for credit through: 4/28/2024

processing....

Clinical Context

Approximately half of US adults have diabetes or prediabetes, which is a major public health concern. A total of 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware of having it, and 23% of diabetes cases remain undiagnosed.

Screening is the primary method for detecting these conditions and allowing early intervention to improve outcomes. Trade-offs associated with any age or body mass index (BMI) threshold chosen result in some individuals with prediabetes/diabetes being ineligible for screening and others without these conditions being eligible.

Study Synopsis and Perspective

Universal screening of all US adults for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes aged 35 to 70 years, regardless of BMI, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk for diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI.

In the new study, researchers examined different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, using criteria from the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as 4 other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.[1]

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at ages 35 to 70 years, regardless of BMI, which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races, may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians do not have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggest.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr O’Brien, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Going forward, achieving equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors note in their article, published online March 24 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.[2]

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.

Nationally Representative Sample, Six Screening Scenarios

In the overall US population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, say O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly 2-fold higher prevalence of diabetes than White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35 to 70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI≥25 kg/m2) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”[1]

Dr O’Brien and colleagues identified 3243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017 to 2020 and who had an A1c blood test. (Half of the participants also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, the authors compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria:

  • BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher and age 35 to 70 years (2021 criteria)
  • BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher and age 40 to 70 years (2015 criteria)

They estimate that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian (17.9%), White (14.0%), and Black (13.9%) individuals.

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at 2 lower age cutoffs and 2 lower BMI cutoffs:

  • BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher and age 30 to 70 years
  • BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher and age 18 to 70 years
  • Age 35 to 70 years and BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher
  • Age 35 to 70 years and any BMI

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35 to 70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes, with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6% and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.8%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged 35 years or older, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers note.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

Am J Prev Med. Published online March 24, 2023.

Study Highlights

  • From January 2017 to March 2020, NHANES data were collected from 3243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes.
  • Age and measured BMI determined screening eligibility.
  • Prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes (fasting plasma glucose ≥100 mg/dL or HbA1c ≥5.7%), were present in 46.8% of those screened.
  • Minority groups were overrepresented among those with undiagnosed diabetes.
  • Overall, and within each racial and ethnic group, 2021 USPSTF criteria (aged 35-70 years; BMI ≥25 kg/m2) had marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% [95% CI, 55.5%-61.6%] vs 52.9% [95% CI, 49.7%-56.0%]) and lower specificity (69.3% [95% CI, 65.7%-72.2%] vs 76.4% [95% CI, 73.3%-79.2%]) than 2015 criteria (ages 40-70 years; BMI, ≥25 kg/m2).
  • Using 2021 vs 2015 USPSTF screening criteria, an estimated 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening,
  • Hispanic populations had greatest increases in screening eligibility (30.6%), followed by Asian (17.9%), White (14.0%), and Black (13.9%) populations.
  • For screening at lower age and weight thresholds (BMI ≥25 kg/m2, age 30-70 years; BMI ≥25 kg/m2, age 18-70 years; age 35-70, BMI ≥23 kg/m2; and age 35-70 and any BMI), sensitivity was even greater and specificity lower than with 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian populations.
  • However, screening all adults aged 35 to 70 years, regardless of BMI, yielded the most equitable prediabetes and diabetes detection.
  • In the overall population, sensitivity was 67.8% and specificity 52.1%.
  • Sensitivity was 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and specificity was 53.8%, 59.8%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.
  • The investigators concluded that following 2021 vs 2015 USPSTF screening criteria detects a greater proportion of adults with prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes who are now eligible for screening.
  • Screening at lower age and BMI thresholds than USPSTF criteria yielded greater sensitivity and lower specificity, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian populations.
  • Using screening criteria maximizing sensitivity would identify the greatest proportion of adults with prediabetes and diabetes and would be more appropriate than maximizing specificity, as glycemic testing is inexpensive, harms of false-positives are low, and evidence-based treatment is available.
  • Screening all adults aged 35 to 70 years yielded even higher sensitivity and performed most similarly by race/ethnicity, which may further promote equity in early detection of prediabetes/diabetes in diverse populations.
  • Applying the same screening criteria across the entire adult population may also be easier to implement by not requiring that clinicians remember alternate BMI or age thresholds for different racial/ethnic groups.
  • Achieving equity in diagnosing these conditions also requires addressing structural barriers, such as lacking a usual source of primary care or health insurance or having copays for screening tests.
  • These barriers to receiving prediabetes/diabetes screening are especially common among those newly eligible in 2021 and may be best addressed through policy efforts.
  • Expanding screening eligibility will likely increase healthcare costs, mandating assessment of costs and cost-effectiveness of any screening approach.
  • Future research should also evaluate use of prediabetes and diabetes screening criteria in practice and its impact on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
  • The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged 35 years and older, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor.

Clinical Implications

  • Screening all adults aged 35 to 70 years yielded highest sensitivity and performed most similarly by race and ethnicity.
  • This may further promote equity in early prediabetes/diabetes detection in diverse populations.
  • Implications for the Health Care Team: Achieving equity in diagnosing these conditions also requires addressing structural barriers.

 

Earn Credit

  • Print