SummaryBackgroundThe increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, uncertainty persists around the benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effect of a population-based stepwise screening programme on mortality.MethodsIn a pragmatic parallel group, cluster-randomised trial, 33 general practices in eastern England were randomly assigned by the method of minimisation in an unbalanced design to: screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment for people diagnosed with diabetes (n=15); screening plus routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines (n=13); and a no-screening control group (n=5). The study population consisted of 20 184 individuals aged 40–69 years (mean 58 years), at high risk of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes, on the basis of a previously validated risk score. In screening practices, individuals were invited to a stepwise programme including random capillary blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) tests, a fasting capillary blood glucose test, and a confirmatory oral glucose tolerance test. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. All participants were flagged for mortality surveillance by the England and Wales Office of National Statistics. Analysis was by intention-to-screen and compared all-cause mortality rates between screening and control groups. This study is registered, number ISRCTN86769081.FindingsOf 16 047 high-risk individuals in screening practices, 15 089 (94%) were invited for screening during 2001–06, 11 737 (73%) attended, and 466 (3%) were diagnosed with diabetes. 4137 control individuals were followed up. During 184 057 person-years of follow up (median duration 9·6 years [IQR 8·9–9·9]), there were 1532 deaths in the screening practices and 377 in control practices (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·90–1·25). We noted no significant reduction in cardiovascular (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·75–1·38), cancer (1·08, 0·90–1·30), or diabetes-related mortality (1·26, 0·75–2·10) associated with invitation to screening.InterpretationIn this large UK sample, screening for type 2 diabetes in patients at increased risk was not associated with a reduction in all-cause, cardiovascular, or diabetes-related mortality within 10 years. The benefits of screening might be smaller than expected and restricted to individuals with detectable disease.FundingWellcome Trust; UK Medical Research Council; National Health Service research and development support; UK National Institute for Health Research; University of Aarhus, Denmark; Bio-Rad.

SARGEANT, LINCOLN A., FRANKLYN I. BENNETT, TERRENCE E. FORRESTER, RICHARD S. COOPER, AND RAINFORD J. WILKS. Predicting incident diabetes in Jamaica: the role of anthropometry. Obes Res. 2002; 10:792-798. Objective: To evaluate the performance of the body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-to-height ratio (WHTR) in predicting incident diabetes in Jamaica. Research Methods and Procedures:A cohort of 728 nondiabetic adults (290 men and 438 women), ages 25 to 74 years and residents of Spanish Town, Jamaica, were followed for a mean of 4 years. Participants had fasting and 2-hour postchallenge glucose concentrations measured at baseline and follow-up. Results: There were 51 cases of incident diabetes (17 men and 34 women). All indices were independent predictors of diabetes, and none was clearly superior. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (95% confidence interval) for BMI was 0.74 (0.59 to 0.88) for men and 0.62 (0.51 to 0.72) for women. For waist circumference, these values were 0.78 (0.65 to 0.91) in men and 0.61 (0.50 to 0.71) in women. Similar results were obtained for WHR and WHTR. "Optimal" cut-off points for BMI were 24.8 kg/m 2 (men) and 29.3 kg/m 2 (women). For waist circumference, these were 88 cm and 84.5 cm for men and women, respectively. Corresponding values for WHR were 0.87 and 0.80 and for WHTR were 0.51 and 0.54, respectively. Discussion: Cut-off points for waist circumference and WHR were similar to those proposed in developed countries for women but lower in men. Waist circumference could be useful in health promotion as an alternative to BMI.

The specific hypothesis that a working environment characterized by high psychosocial stress is directly associated with increased risk of Type 2 diabetes could not be supported from the meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE -Type 2 diabetes is a serious disease that is commonly undetected and for which screening is sometimes advocated. A number of risk factors are associated with prevalent undiagnosed diabetes. The use of routinely available information on these factors has been proposed as a simple and effective way of identifying individuals at high risk for having the disease. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the Cambridge risk score in a large and representative population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-A risk score derived from data in a previous study was tested for its ability to detect prevalent undiagnosed hyperglycemia as measured by a GHb Ն6.0, 6.5, or 7% in 6,567 subjects aged 39 -78 years in the European Prospective Investigation of CancerϪNorfolk cohort.RESULTS -For a specificity of 78%, the risk score predicted a GHb of Ն7.0% in subjects aged 39 -78 years, with a sensitivity of 51% (95% CI 40 -62). The areas under the receiveroperating characteristic (ROC) curve for GHb Ն6.0, 6.5, and 7% were 65.7% (63.8 -67.6), 71.2% (68.4 -75.2), and 74.2% (69.5-79.0), respectively. The area under the ROC curve was not significantly reduced if data on family and smoking history were unavailable for any of the cut-offs for GHb.CONCLUSIONS -The risk score performed as well as other previously reported models in all age groups. We concluded that a simple risk score using data routinely available in primary care can identify people with an elevated GHb with reasonable sensitivity and specificity, and it could therefore form part of a strategy for early detection of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 25:984 -988, 2002