"Screen and treat" policies
to preventing type 2 diabetes are unlikely to have substantial impact
on this growing epidemic, concludes a study published by The BMJ.
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is
rising globally. In the UK, for example, about 3.2 million people
have the condition and by 2025, it is predicted that this will
increase to five million, at an estimated cost of £23.7bn ($30.2bn,
€28.2bn) to the NHS.
There are two approaches to prevention:
screen and treat, in which people are identified as "high risk"
and offered individual intervention, and a population-wide approach,
in which everyone is targeted via public health policies. The UK's
National Diabetes Prevention Program follows Australia and the United
States in placing the emphasis on a screen and treat approach.
But this approach will be effective
only if a test exists that correctly identifies those at high risk
(sensitivity) while also excluding those at low risk (specificity);
and an intervention exists that is acceptable to patients and
clinicians.
So a team of researchers, led by
Professor Trish Greenhalgh at the University of Oxford, assessed the
diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pre-diabetes (high risk of
developing type 2 diabetes in the future) and effectiveness of
interventions in preventing onset of type 2 diabetes in people with
pre-diabetes.
They analyzed the results of 49 studies
of screening tests and 50 intervention trials. Screening tests
included fasting plasma glucose (higher than normal blood sugar
levels after a period of fasting) and raised glycated hemoglobin or
HbA1c (proportion of red blood cells with glucose attached,
indicating blood glucose levels over the previous 2-3 months).
Interventions were lifestyle change or treatment with metformin (a
drug that helps lower blood sugar levels).
They found that the diagnostic accuracy
of tests used to detect pre-diabetes in screening programs was low -
fasting glucose is specific but not sensitive and HbA1c is neither
sensitive nor specific - suggesting that large numbers of people will
be unnecessarily treated or falsely reassured depending on the test
used.
Lifestyle interventions lasting three
to six years showed a 37% reduction in relative risk of type 2
diabetes, equating to 151 out of 1000 people developing diabetes
compared with 239 of 1000 in the control group. This fell to 20% in
follow up studies.
Use of metformin showed a relative risk
reduction of 26% while participants were taking this drug,
translating to 218 out of 1000 developing diabetes while taking
metformin compared with 295 of 1000 not receiving it. The authors
warn that study quality was often low and results may have been
affected by bias (problems in study design that can influence
results).
They conclude that "screen and
treat" policies will benefit some but not all people at high
risk of developing diabetes, and they should be complemented by
population-wide approaches for effective diabetes prevention.
In a linked editorial, Professor Norman
Waugh from Warwick Medical School says adherence to lifestyle change
across whole populations is the key to prevention of type 2 diabetes.
He points out that "pre-diabetes"
is an unsatisfactory term because many people so labeled do not
develop diabetes, and believes there is a balance to be struck
between the medical model of screening and treating of individuals of
individuals, and the public health model of changing behavior in the
whole population at risk.
He says public health measures targeted
at the whole population at risk could include interventions to help
weight control, such as changes to taxation of foodstuffs and
interventions to make physical activity easier or safer.
However, he acknowledges that adherence
to lifestyle advice remains poor, and concludes that preventing or
delaying type 2 diabetes "requires effective measures to
motivate the general population to protect their own health."
The missing factor not discussed
(probably wisely) is the attitude of doctors toward the whole
population and doing the “screen and treat” protocol to attempt
to stop the diabetes epidemic.
No comments:
Post a Comment