社区糖尿病不同筛查方法效果及可操作性比较

黎衍云; 王思源; 杨沁平; 严青华; 吴菲; 程旻娜; 施燕

doi:10.11847/zgggws1135267

社区糖尿病不同筛查方法效果及可操作性比较

doi: 10.11847/zgggws1135267

黎衍云^{1, （},
王思源¹,
杨沁平¹,
严青华¹,
吴菲¹,
程旻娜¹,
施燕^{1, 2, ,}

1.
上海市疾病预防控制中心慢性非传染病和伤害防治所, 200336
2.
复旦大学附属华山医院国家老年疾病临床医学研究中心

基金项目: 上海市卫健委面上项目（202040209）；上海市医学领军人才培养计划（2019LJ24）；上海市加强公共卫生体系建设三年行动计划（2020 — 2022年）（GWV – 7）

详细信息

作者简介:
黎衍云（1979 – ），男，江西省南康人，副主任医师，硕士，主要从事慢性病预防与控制工作

通讯作者:
施燕，E-mail：shiyan@scdc.sh.cn

（王思源为本文并列第一作者）
中图分类号: R 587.1
计量
- 文章访问数: 321
- HTML全文浏览量: 108
- PDF下载量: 29
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 接收日期: 2021-04-29
- 网络出版日期: 2022-07-22
- 刊出日期: 2022-08-31

Effectiveness and operability of different screening methods for diabetes in community populations: a comparative analysis

1.
Division of Non-Communicable Chronic Diseases and Injury, Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 200336, China

摘要

摘要: 目的评价不同社区糖尿病筛查方法的筛查效果和实用意义，为社区糖尿病筛查流程的确立提供依据。方法于2017年10 — 12月采用多阶段整群随机抽样方法在上海市抽取23 940名 ≥ 35岁中老年社区居民进行问卷调查、体格检查和血糖测定，通过比较早发现流程、风险评分法、空腹静脉血糖（FPG）等筛查方法的灵敏度、特异度、约登指数、受试者工作特征曲线下面积（AUROC）以及筛查过程中需要进行FPG和口服葡萄糖耐量试验（OGTT）检测比例评价不同筛查方法的筛查效果及可操作性。结果最终纳入分析的17981名既往未确诊糖尿病者中，新诊断糖尿病前期者4129例，糖尿病前期患病率为22.96 %；新诊断出糖尿病者2213例，新诊断糖尿病患病率为12.31 %。早发现流程筛查未诊断糖尿病人群和糖尿病前期人群的灵敏度、特异度、约登指数、AUROC分别为87.3 %、60.2 %、0.479、0.858和61.0 %、58.9 %、0.199、0.620，风险评分法分别为96.7 %、15.2 %、0.119、0.680和93.3 %、15.8 %、0.091、0.602，FPG法分别为82.5 %、87.5 %、0.700、0.922和 47.8 %、86.0 %、0.338、0.708。早发现流程FPG和OGTT 2h静脉血糖（2h PG）需检测人数比例为45.7 %和42.6 %，风险评分法均为86.3 %，FPG法分别为100.0 %和21.1 %。结论早发现流程可在获得较高糖代谢异常人群检出率的同时，最大程度减少静脉血糖检测人数，简化现场实施流程，可作为大规模社区人群糖尿病及糖尿病前期筛查的有效工具。
- 糖尿病 /
- 筛查方法 /
- 效果 /
- 可操作性 /
- 比较 /
- 社区
Abstract: Objective To evaluate the efficiency and practical significance of different diabetes screening methods in community population and to provide evidences for the establishment of community diabetes screening process. Methods Using multistage cluster random sampling, we recruited 23 940 permanent residents aged ≥ 35 years and without acute or serious chronic diseases/type I diabetes in urban communities and rural villages of 7 districts of Shanghai for a questionnaire survey, physical examination and blood glucose measurement during October – December, 2017. The effectiveness and operability of an early-detecting process, risk score assessment and fast plasma glucose (FPG) screening for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) were evaluated by comparing the three methods′ sensitivity, specificity, Youden index , area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the proportion of abnormal FPG and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Results Of the 17 981 previously undiagnosed diabetics identified among the residents and included in the analysis, 4 129 prediabetics and 2 213 diabetes were detected, with the prevalence rates of 22.96% and 12.31%, respectively. For the three methods (early-detecting process vs. risk score assessment vs. FPG screening) in detections of diabetes/prediabetic in previously undiagnosed diabetic population, the sensitivities (%) were 87.3/61.0 vs. 96.7/93.3 vs. 82.5/47.8; the specificities (%) were 60.2/58.9 vs. 15.2/15.8 vs. 87.5/86.0; the Youden indexes were 0.479/0.199 vs. 0.119/0.091 vs. 0.700/0.338, and the values of AUROC were 0.858/0.620 vs. 0.680/0.602 vs. 0.922/0.708; also for the three methods, the proportions (%) of the examinees requiring FPG/2-hour plasma glucose detection of OGTT were 45.7/42.6 vs. 86.3/86.3 vs. 100/21.1, respectively. Conclusion In diabetes screening among community residents, early-detecting process could achieve a higher detection rate of abnormal glucose metabolism with a minimum number of venous blood glucose detection and simplified on-site implementation procedures and the process could be adopted effectively in large-scale prediabetics and diabetes screening in community populations.
- diabetes /
- screening method /
- effectiveness /
- operability /
- comparison /
- community
注释:

1) （王思源为本文并列第一作者）

HTML全文

表 1 不同糖代谢状态人群人口学特征比较

特征		正常血糖（n = 11639）		糖尿病前期（n = 4129）		糖尿病（n = 2213）		χ² 值	P 值
特征		人数	%	例数	%	例数	%	χ² 值	P 值
性别	男性	4479	38.5	1589	38.5	999	45.1	36.076	< 0.001
	女性	7160	61.5	2540	61.5	1214	54.9
年龄（岁）	35～44	851	7.3	109	2.7	56	2.5	518.357	< 0.001
	45～54	2065	17.7	492	11.9	252	11.4
	55～64	4494	38.6	1396	33.8	692	31.3
	65～74	3244	27.9	1528	37.0	855	38.6
	≥ 75	985	8.5	604	14.6	358	16.2
文化程度	初中及以下	8160	70.1	3089	74.8	1576	71.2	32.978	< 0.001
	高中及以上	3479	29.9	1040	25.2	637	28.8
糖尿病家族史 ^a	无	9773	85.9	3309	82.6	1647	77.7	101.086	< 0.001
	有	1603	14.1	699	17.4	474	22.3
吸烟情况 ^a	吸烟	3080	26.5	1032	25.0	624	28.2	7.907	0.019
	不吸烟	8549	73.5	3094	75.0	1587	71.8
饮酒情况 ^a	饮酒	2465	21.2	870	21.1	511	23.1	4.445	0.108
	不饮酒	9162	78.8	3249	78.9	1697	76.9
注：a 数据有缺失。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 不同糖代谢状态人群检查指标比较

检查指标	正常血糖	糖尿病前期	糖尿病	F 值	P 值
体质指数	24.4 ± 3.2	25.4 ± 3.3	26.0 ± 3.4	323.254	< 0.001
腰围（cm）	84.1 ± 9.1	86.8 ± 9.1	89.0 ± 9.4	340.933	< 0.001
收缩压（mm Hg）	136.3 ± 18.3	142.7 ± 18.9	146.3 ± 18.6	382.739	< 0.001
舒张压（mm Hg）	82.0 ± 10.2	83.8 ± 10.5	84.7 ± 10.5	88.246	< 0.001
FCBG（mmol/L）	5.3 ± 0.7	5.8 ± 0.8	7.2 ± 1.9	4038.022	< 0.001
FPG（mmol/L）	5.3 ± 0.4	5.9 ± 0.6	7.6 ± 2.1	6971.450	< 0.001
2hPG（mmol/L）	5.6 ± 1.2	8.2 ± 1.7	13.0 ± 3.9	15788.303	< 0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 糖尿病不同筛查方法效果比较

糖代谢状态	筛查流程	诊断		漏诊		灵敏度（%）	特异度（%）	约登指数	阳性预测值	阳性预测值
糖代谢状态	筛查流程	n	%	n	%	灵敏度（%）	特异度（%）	约登指数	阳性预测值	阳性预测值
糖尿病	早发现流程	1 933	87.3	280	12.7	87.3	60.2	0.479	23.6	97.2
	风险评分法	2140	96.7	73	3.3	96.7	15.2	0.119	13.8	97.0
	FPG法	1 825	82.5	388	17.5	82.5	87.5	0.700	48.1	97.3
糖尿病前期	早发现流程	2518	61.0	1611	39.0	61.0	58.9	0.199	30.7	83.5
	风险评分法	3852	93.3	277	6.7	93.3	15.8	0.091	24.8	88.7
	FPG法	1 972	47.8	2157	52.2	47.8	86.0	0.338	51.9	84.8

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(19)

[1]	Porta M, Curletto G, Cipullo D, et al. Estimating the delay between onset and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes from the time course of retinopathy prevalence[J]. Diabetes Care, 2014, 37(6): 1668 – 1674. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2101
[2]	中国医疗保健国际交流促进会基层卫生分会. 基层2型糖尿病筛查专家共识[J]. 中国医学前沿杂志: 电子版, 2019, 11(7): 79 – 85.
[3]	UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood - glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33)[J]. The Lancet, 1998, 352(9131): 837 – 853. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6
[4]	Bartnik M, Rydén L, Ferrari R, et al. The prevalence of abnormal glucose regulation in patients with coronary artery disease across Europe: the Euro heart survey on diabetes and the heart[J]. European Heart Journal, 2004, 25(21): 1880 – 1890. doi: 10.1016/j.ehj.2004.07.027
[5]	中华医学会糖尿病学分会. 中国2型糖尿病防治指南(2020年版)[J]. 中华糖尿病杂志, 2021, 13(4): 315 – 409.
[6]	Ealovega MW, Tabaei BP, Brandle M, et al. Opportunistic screening for diabetes in routine clinical practice[J]. Diabetes Care, 2004, 27(1): 9 – 12. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.1.9
[7]	Chen J, Guo HJ, Yuan SX, et al. Efficacy of urinary glucose for diabetes screening: a reconsideration[J]. Acta Diabetologica, 2019, 56(1): 45 – 53. doi: 10.1007/s00592-018-1212-1
[8]	陈静, 纪立农, 周翔海, 等. 糖化血红蛋白在中国人群筛查糖尿病患者的荟萃分析[J]. 中国糖尿病杂志, 2018, 26(3): 177 – 187. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6187.2018.03.001
[9]	Zhou XH, Qiao Q, Ji LN, et al. Nonlaboratory - based risk assessment algorithm for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes developed on a nation - wide diabetes survey[J]. Diabetes Care, 2013, 36(12): 3944 – 3952. doi: 10.2337/dc13-0593
[10]	上海市疾病预防控制中心. 上海市慢性病及其危险因素监测报告(2013)[M]. 上海: 上海科学普及出版社, 2014.
[11]	Engelgau MM, Narayan KM, Herman WH. Screening for type 2 diabetes[J]. Diabetes Care, 2000, 23(10): 1563 – 1580. doi: 10.2337/diacare.23.10.1563
[12]	王煜非. 解读ISO 15197 : 2013标准[J]. 中国糖尿病杂志, 2014, 22(12): 1149 – 1152. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6187.2014.12.028
[13]	Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, et al. 10 - year follow - up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes[J]. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2008, 359(15): 1577 – 1589. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806470
[14]	周超. 近年来丹阳市糖尿病高危人群筛查与干预情况分析[D]. 苏州: 苏州大学, 2016.
[15]	Zhao X, Zhao W, Zhang H, et al. Fasting capillary blood glucose: an appropriate measurement in screening for diabetes and predia-betes in low - resource rural settings[J]. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 2013, 36(1): 33 – 37.
[16]	张云良, 郭淑芹, 马文彬, 等. 指尖毛细血管空腹血糖筛查糖尿病和糖尿病前期的切点及应用[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2010, 31(10): 1174 – 1178. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2010.10.023
[17]	刘宇翔, 郭海健, 汪清, 等. 指尖血糖在社区筛查糖尿病及前期人群中应用价值的研究[J]. 中国糖尿病杂志, 2019, 27(1): 7 – 10. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6187.2019.01.003
[18]	郭海健, 胡浩, 刘宇翔, 等. 指尖血联合中国糖尿病风险评分表法筛查糖尿病及糖尿病前期的效率分析[J]. 中华糖尿病杂志, 2020, 12(2): 76 – 80. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-5809.2020.02.004
[19]	陈杨, 杨永芳, 邵英, 等. 自然人群糖尿病空腹血糖和糖化血红蛋白筛查效果评价[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2017, 33(2): 199 – 201. doi: 10.11847/zgggws2017-33-02-07