This story reported on a study that examined data from a long-running U.S. heart disease study to conclude that testing both a patient’s fasting glucose and A1C from a single blood sample is sufficient to confirm type 2 diabetes. Current guidelines call for performing either test once, followed by a second confirmatory test, thus requiring two separate lab visits and blood draws. The study was reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The story’s strong point was that it tapped two independent sources. On the downside, it didn’t report that the single-sample testing method could miss many cases of diabetes or explore whether it would lead to better outcomes for patients, like avoiding complications of diabetes.
For help understanding medical tests such as these, see our primer: Understanding medical tests: sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value.
Testing for diabetes can help patients manage the disease before the onset of serious complications such as eye disease, kidney disease, heart disease, and stroke. Testing can also identify people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, allowing them to make lifestyle changes such as losing weight.
Evidence supporting a simplified testing strategy — which is apparently already in use — might offer reassurance that the strategy is effective in identifying people who are likely to develop diabetes. On the other hand, it’s unclear from this study how much an impact this strategy would have on averting bad outcomes for patients.
The story provided no information on how much these tests cost. A check online found CVS drug store offered these tests for $59 apiece.
The story referred to the potential for a single test to result in quicker diagnosis and treatment of diabetes, thus “saving patients time and health care costs” and leading to better outcomes.
But it offered no data on how much more rapidly diagnosis and treatment might occur with single-sample testing, or more importantly how much difference it would make in heading off the many complications of diabetes.
According to the news release, 90% of those who tests positive in both tests went on to be diagnosed with diabetes within 15 years.
The story would have benefited from an exploration of the harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Many of the patients who tested positive in both tests didn’t develop diabetes until a decade or two later. Potentially, patients like that could be treated overly aggressively with drugs that could do them harm.
Likewise, an accompanying editorial notes that the criteria proposed by the study might miss more people with diabetes than the conventional method of repeated blood glucose tests. In the data studied, simultaneous A1C and blood glucose tests agreed only about 40% of the time, versus 70% agreement for successive blood sugar tests.
Important caveats should have been mentioned, such as the study authors’ own acknowledgment that their findings need to be confirmed in other data sets.
The five-year intervals between blood glucose tests in the study population were much longer than what happens in clinical practice today, given screening recommendations for those at high risk.
As the editorial noted, the study included only black and white Americans aged 45 to 64 years, so the usefulness of these findings for other patient groups is uncertain.
There was no disease-mongering, but the story would have been stronger with information about who should be screened. For example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends checking for abnormal blood glucose as part of cardiovascular risk assessment in adults who are overweight and between 40 and 70 years old, and referring those with abnormal levels to intensive behavioral counseling.
The story tapped independent diabetes experts.
While the study was funded by government grants, one of the authors disclosed grants and personal fees from industry, unrelated to the study.
The story made it clear that doing tests one at a time is called for in the current guideline.
But the story doesn’t mention the fasting plasma glucose test and the oral glucose tolerance test, which along with the glucose blood test, can be used if A1C test results aren’t consistent, the A1C test isn’t available, or you have a condition such as pregnancy that might render the A1C test inaccurate.
The story explained that both blood tests are routinely performed for diabetes.
The story explained that that some doctors already do conduct dual tests from a single blood sample, and that the study’s findings might support adding that strategy to clinical guidelines.
The story drew heavily from a Johns Hopkins news release but also used other sources.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like