PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11918621

Assessing diabetic control--reliability of methods available in resource poor settings.

A P Rotchford·K M Rotchford·T Machattie·G V Gill
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AIMS AND METHODS: To examine the reliability of random venous or capillary blood glucose testing, random urine glucose testing, and a current symptom history in predicting a high HbA1c in Type 2 diabetic patients taking oral hypoglycaemic agents in a poorly controlled rural African population. RESULTS: For a cut-off point for HbA1c of > or = 8%, for random venous plasma glucose of > or = 14 mmol/L (present in 47.2% of subjects), specificity was 97.1% (95% CI 85.1-99.9), sensitivity 56.8% (48.8-64.5) and positive predictive value (PPV) 98.9% (94.2-99.9). HbA1c > or = 8% is predicted by a random capillary blood glucose of 17 mmol/L (present in 28.4% of subjects) with specificity 100% (90.0-100.0), PPV 100% (93.7-100.0) and sensitivity of 34.3% (27.2-42.1). HbA1c > or = 8% is predicted by the presence of heavy glycosuria (> or = 55 mmol/L) (present in 35.6%) with specificity 94.1% (80.3-99.3), sensitivity of 41.9% (34.1-49.9) and PPV 97.1% (89.9-99.6). Polyuria/nocturia (present in 31.3%) was the only symptom found to be associated with poor control, with a specificity for predicting HbA1c of > or = 8% of 81.5% (61.9-93.7), PPV 89.1% (76.4-96.4) and sensitivity 30.6% (22.9-39.1). CONCLUSIONS: Where resources are short, random glucose testing can be used to detect a significant proportion of those with the worst control with a high degree of specificity enabling primary care staff to modify treatment safely. Where facilities are limited capillary blood or urine testing with reagent strips, may be substituted for venous plasma testing in the laboratory. A symptom history was insufficient to replace biochemical testing, but where this is unavailable, urinary symptoms may be helpful.

Explore related subjects

Black PeopleBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycated HemoglobinGlycosuriaHomeostasisHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSouth AfricaJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A P Rotchford, K M Rotchford, T Machattie, G V Gill. 2002. Assessing diabetic control--reliability of methods available in resource poor settings.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00601.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

BiDil for heart failure in black patients: implications of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.

In 2005, the combination of hydralazine hydrochloride and isosorbide dinitrate was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating heart failure in black patients. In departing from its long history of approving drugs for general clinical indications without regard to demographic classification, the FDA cited the need to address racial disparities in health as an important contributor to their decision. The authors argue that this decision, although perhaps well-intentioned, was based on flawed scientific interpretation of trial results that claimed differential drug response by race and ignored the considerable literature on the cause of racial disparities in health and health care. Because of its potential impact on future drug approvals, the FDA's decision is a setback in the scientific and policy discourse on medical therapeutics and race and specifically hinders the efforts aimed at eliminating health and health care disparities.

Black People↗
PubMed2007

BiDil for heart failure in black patients: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration perspective.

Critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the fixed combination of hydralazine hydrochloride, 37.5 mg, and isosorbide dinitrate, 20 mg, for treating heart failure in black patients have suggested that data were insufficient to distinguish treatment effects in black and white people; that distinctions based on race, rather than pathophysiology, were scientifically unreasonable; and that a "race-based" approval could be a commercial ploy to avoid a more expensive and prolonged full evaluation of a drug. The criticisms acknowledge that data supporting the approval came from a well-designed clinical trial in which self-identified black patients with heart failure who took hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate with standard therapy experienced a statistically significant 43% (95% CI, 11% to 63%) reduction in mortality compared with those who took only the standard therapy. The criticisms do not always recognize that the decision to conduct the trial in only black patients reflected careful analyses of 2 previous trials in racially mixed patient populations that compared hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate with placebo or with enalapril. Both trials showed little or no overall effect of hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate in the mostly white patient population but hinted at a substantial effect in subsets of black patients. Perhaps most critically, the criticisms do not appreciate the urgency of strong scientific evidence of a substantial survival benefit in black patients. A serious attempt to avoid race-based approval by mandating study of a mixed population to identify a possible white patient-responder subset, particularly without a plausible hypothesis as to what that subset might be, would have required years of work, many thousands of patients, and wholly unreasonable delay in approval of a treatment whose effectiveness had been well-documented in the group for which it was intended.

Black People↗