Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

The impact of new guidelines for glucose tolerance testing on clinical practice and laboratory services

Andrew W. Lyon, Erik T. Larsen and Alun L. Edwards
CMAJ October 26, 2004 171 (9) 1067-1069; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040138
Andrew W. Lyon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erik T. Larsen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alun L. Edwards
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2004 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

The Canadian Diabetes Association's 2003 clinical practice guidelines for diabetes mellitus were published in mid-December 2003.1 These guidelines retain the fasting plasma glucose test for the diagnosis of diabetes, and the criterion for diagnosis (fasting plasma glucose level of 7.0 mmol/L or more) remains unchanged. However, the guidelines now include a new recommendation: that anyone with a risk factor for diabetes and a fasting plasma glucose level between 5.7 and 6.9 mmol/L should be considered for an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).1 The previous version of the guidelines,2 published in 1998, lacked management guidelines for the diagnostic category of impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose level of 6.1 to 6.9 mmol/L). The move to recommend more OGTTs responds to consistent reporting of a significant number of people with fasting plasma glucose values below the diagnostic threshold for diabetes but with postload glucose values exceeding the diagnostic cut-off of 11.1 mmol/L. If the new recommendation is followed, the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes should increase, and the significant number of undiagnosed cases should be correspondingly reduced.3,4

There is a presumption that diagnosis earlier in the natural history of the disease would be beneficial for long-term outcome, but the new recommendation is still based on relatively weak evidence (grade D, consensus).1 Although there may be some benefit to earlier diagnosis, this new recommendation will influence both clinical practice and laboratory services and has the potential to ignite a new round of debate among Canadian physicians on the merits of improving the recognition and diagnosis of diabetes.5,6,7

Strong evidence exists that interventions can reduce the progression of impaired glucose tolerance to diabetes mellitus over time,8,9 and this evidence has also driven the recommendation to promote formal glucose tolerance testing over a wider range of fasting plasma glucose levels than impaired fasting glucose alone.1 It should be recognized, however, that the cited intervention trials examined people with impaired glucose tolerance precisely because this group is known to have a high event rate. Impaired glucose tolerance is a phase in the natural history between “at risk” and the development of diabetes. It is reasonable to assume that “at-risk” patients with normal glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose would benefit from lifestyle interventions, and the need for definitive determination of impaired glucose tolerance is moot.

The recommendation to use a 2-hour OGTT for patients with fasting plasma glucose levels between 5.7 and 6.9 mmol/L restores an imprecise and labour-intensive tool to avoid underdiagnosis of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance.10,11 The OGTT may be familiar to physicians, and it is a more sensitive test for diabetes than the fasting plasma glucose test in older and less obese patients;12,13 however, it has poor reproducibility (results are reproducible for less than 60% of patients14,15). Recent reports have argued that testing of hemoglobin A1C levels could be used diagnostically with greater precision, sensitivity and convenience to patients,16 although the evidence required for a clinical practice guideline recommendation is still lacking.1

Complete adherence to the new guidelines would have a large impact on laboratory services that, in the absence of additional financial resources, could be detrimental to health service delivery. We gathered data on fasting plasma glucose tests for different patients (repeat tests excluded) from the main laboratory service provider in the Calgary region (Calgary Laboratory Services) for the period Sept. 1 to Nov. 30, 2003. The distribution of the 57 357 fasting plasma glucose values obtained in the Calgary Health Region for this 3-month period shows that for 8469 (14.8%) of all patients tested the glucose level was between 5.7 and 6.9 mmol/L (Fig. 1). The large percentage of test results within this range is anticipated from, and is in accordance with, the reference range for fasting plasma glucose (14.9% of the reference distribution lies in this range; Fig. 1). Some of the fasting plasma glucose tests in Calgary may have been performed in people with established diabetes (i.e., not for diagnostic purposes), but we believe that such testing is performed relatively infrequently, unless the patient's lipid profile is also being checked.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Fig. 1: Frequency distribution of fasting plasma glucose values in the Calgary Health Region. The solid line represents the results of community-based testing for any reason from Sept. 1 to Nov. 30, 2003 (57 357 tests; repeat test results per patient omitted). The broken line represents the frequency distribution of a reference range for fasting plasma glucose (derived by reverse natural logarithm transformation of a distribution with the World Health Organization 97.5% upper limit of 6.1 mmol/L and a recent estimate of the standard deviation of this distribution in a Scandinavian reference population17). For both curves, relative frequency is plotted for intervals of 0.1 mmol/L glucose.

OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test

If all of the fasting plasma glucose tests were intended for diagnosis and all patients had fasting plasma glucose checked because they were at risk of diabetes, we could anticipate an additional 2823 OGTTs per month (i.e., 8469/3), 19 times the current volume of 150 tests per month (which excludes testing in pregnant women). Age of 40 years or more is a risk factor, and we found that 94.7% of the 8469 subjects with fasting plasma glucose values of 5.7 to 6.9 mmol/L would be considered for an OGTT on the basis of age alone. If we make a very conservative estimate that half of these patients (4234 over 3 months or 1411 per month) had unknown diabetic status and another risk factor for the condition, there would still be a substantial increase in the demand for the OGTT.

The OGTT is cumbersome and time-consuming for both the patient and the laboratory service. The procedure includes pretest instructions to patients by telephone when they reserve a testing time, additional instructions given with the glucose drink as the test is initiated and a phlebotomy 2 hours after the drink (estimated total time 25 minutes of labour per patient and approximately 2.5 hours of time when the patient is hosted in the waiting room of the clinic). At this time, with existing resources, it is unlikely that the laboratory service in Calgary has sufficient capacity to accommodate an additional 1400 to 2800 patients per month for this type of testing, a situation that we believe would be reflected nationally.

Integration of these new guidelines into practice may already be under way, and clinical laboratories across Canada will require more resources to support even partial implementation of the guideline.18 Does the OGTT really provide sufficient clinical value for these resources? In its recommendations, the Canadian Diabetes Association1recognizes that no single laboratory test has been shown to be adequate for routine diagnostic use; in our view the OGTT in particular is poorly reproducible and cumbersome and its cost-effectiveness questionable. Further research might allow the development of tools for stratifying the risk of diabetes according to several variables (e.g., age, family history, waist measurement, hemoglobin A1c level, fasting plasma glucose level), just as other scoring systems are used to determine cardiovascular risk.1,19,20 Such scoring of risk factors might help to guide interventions that have already been proven to prevent diabetes.21,22,23 However, in the absence of an established tool to diagnose early diabetes, clinicians could identify known risk factors in their patients (e.g., obesity, sedentary lifestyle, family history of diabetes) and could empirically counsel patients regarding lifestyle changes to modify these risk factors. Such measures can be undertaken even in the absence of biochemical markers of dysglycemia. We believe that devoting resources to programs that can help patients to modify their risks for diabetes is preferable to performing more OGTTs of dubious specificity, according to a recommendation that is based on inadequate evidence and consensus opinion.

Footnotes

  • Contributors: All 3 authors developed the design of the project from an original concept of Alun Edwards. Andrew Lyon and Erik Larsen directed the data acquisition and analysis. All authors participated in interpreting the data and writing the article, and all have given their final approval of the submitted version.

    Competing interests: None declared.

    Correspondence to: Dr. Alun L. Edwards, Diabetes Education Centre, Colonel Belcher Hospital, 1213 4th St. SW, Calgary AB T2R 0X7; fax 403 943-2469; aedwardsucalgary.ca

References

  1. 1.↵
    Canadian Diabetes Association 2003 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2003;27(Suppl 2):S10-3.
  2. 2.↵
    Meltzer S, Leiter L, Daneman D, Gerstein HC, Lau D, Ludwig S, et al. 1998 clinical practice guidelines for the management of diabetes in Canada. CMAJ 1998;159(8 Suppl):S1-29.
  3. 3.↵
    Diabetes in Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Health Canada; updated 2003 Jan 17. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/dic-dac2/english/01cover_e.html (accessed 2004 Sep 16).
  4. 4.↵
    Kernohan AFB, Perry CG, Small M. Clinical impact of the new criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003;41:1239-45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Marshall KG. The folly of population screening for type 2 diabetes [editorial]. CMAJ 1999;160(11):1592-3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Gerstein HC, Meltzer S. Preventive medicine in people at high risk for chronic disease: the value of identifying and treating diabetes [editorial]. CMAJ 1999;160(11):1593-4, discussion 1595-6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Young TK, Mustard CA. Undiagnosed diabetes? Does it matter? CMAJ 2001;164(1):24-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle amongst individuals with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med 2001; 344 (18): 1343-50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346(6):393-403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Ganda OP, Day JL, Soeldner JS, Connon JJ, Gleason RE. Reproducibility and comparative analysis of repeated intravenous and oral glucose tolerance tests. Diabetes 1978;27:715-25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Ko GT, Chan JC, Woo J, Lau E, Yeung VT, Chow CC, et al. The reproducibility and usefulness of the oral glucose tolerance test in screening for diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors. Ann Clin Biochem 1998;35:62-7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Shaw JE, de Courten M, Boyko EJ, Zimmet PZ. Impact of new diagnostic criteria for diabetes on different populations. Diabetes Care 1999;22:762-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Will new diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus change phenotype of patients with diabetes? Reanalysis of European epidemiological data. DECODE Study Group on behalf of the European Diabetes Epidemiology Study Group. BMJ 1998;317(7155):371-5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Sievenpiper JL, Leiter LA, Vuksan V. Intrasubject coefficient-of-variation corresponds to diagnostic reproducibility in diabetes screening. Can J Diabetes 2002; 26:105-12.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Schousboe K, Henriksen JE, Kyvik KO, Sorensen TI, Hyltoft Petersen P. Reproducibility of S-insulin and B-glucose responses in two identical oral glucose tolerance tests. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2002;62(8):623-30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Anand SS, Razak F, Vuksan V, Gerstein HC, Malmberg K, Yi Q, et al. Diagnostic strategies to detect glucose intolerance in a multiethnic population. Diabetes Care 2003;26:290-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Jorgensen LG, Stahl M, Brandslund I, Hyltoft Petersen P, Borch-Johnsen K, de Fine Olivarius N. Plasma glucose reference interval in a low-risk population. 2. Impact of the new WHO and ADA recommendations on the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2001;61(3):181-90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Van Walraven C. Practice guidelines and practicing physicians — Who's guiding whom? [editorial]. Clin Chem 2002;48:9-10.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Genest J, Frolich J, Fodor J, McPherson R (the Working Group on Hypercholesterolemia and Other Dyslipidemias). Recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia and the prevention of cardiovascular disease: 2003 update. CMAJ 2003;168(9):Online-1 to Online-10. Available: www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/9/921/DC1 (accessed 2004 Sep 16).
  20. 20.↵
    Stevens RJ, Kothari V, Adler AI, Stratton IM; United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in type II diabetes (UKPDS 56) [published erratum appears in Clin Sci (Lond) 2002;102(6):679]. Clin Sci (Lond) 2001; 101 (6): 671-9.
  21. 21.↵
    Stern MP, Williams K, Haffner SM. Identification of persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Do we need the oral glucose tolerance test? Ann Intern Med 2002;136:575-81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Engelau MM, Narayan KMV, Vinicor F. Identifying the target population for primary prevention: the trade-offs. Diabetes Care 2002;25:2098-9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Saydah SH, Byrd-Holt D, Harris MI. Projected impact of implementing the results of the diabetes prevention program in the US population. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1940-5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 171 (9)
CMAJ
Vol. 171, Issue 9
26 Oct 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The impact of new guidelines for glucose tolerance testing on clinical practice and laboratory services
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The impact of new guidelines for glucose tolerance testing on clinical practice and laboratory services
Andrew W. Lyon, Erik T. Larsen, Alun L. Edwards
CMAJ Oct 2004, 171 (9) 1067-1069; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040138

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The impact of new guidelines for glucose tolerance testing on clinical practice and laboratory services
Andrew W. Lyon, Erik T. Larsen, Alun L. Edwards
CMAJ Oct 2004, 171 (9) 1067-1069; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040138
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • How to diagnose diabetes
  • How to diagnose diabetes
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Time for a regulatory framework for pediatric medications in Canada
  • Optimizing timing of completion of the Surgical Safety Checklist to account for emergence from anesthesia
  • Shifting from cytology to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Diabetes

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire