Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy is comparable to hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance.

AIM: We compare performance of noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy (SFS), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and hemoglobin A1c (A1C) for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT). METHODS: The NSEEDS trial evaluated SFS, FPG, and A1C in an at-risk population of 479 previously undiagnosed subjects from nine US centers, each of whom received a 75 g, 2 h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Skin fluorescence spectra were collected and analyzed with SCOUT DS® devices. Disease truth was AGT, defined as OGTT ≥140 mg/dl. Abnormal glucose tolerance sensitivity, false positive rate (FPR), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were computed for each measurement technique. Skin fluorescence spectroscopy reproducibility was also assessed. RESULTS: The AGT sensitivity of SFS was 68.2%, higher than that of FPG (thresholds of 100 and 110 mg/dl) and A1C (thresholds of 5.7% and 6.0%). The FPR of SFS was 37.7%, comparable to A1C at the 5.7% threshold (30.7%). Partial ROC areas of SFS, FPG, and A1C were similar for FPRs of 20-50% (average sensitivities of 64.0%, 59.0%, and 68.6%, respectively). The interday coefficient of variation for SFS was 7.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Skin fluorescence spectroscopy has similar screening performance to FPG and A1C and is a viable approach for detection of AGT.

Noninvasive optical screening for diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are implicated in the complications of diabetes. Advanced glycation end products also accumulate in the skin and are sensitive biomarkers for the risk of developing diabetes and related complications. Some AGEs fluoresce and can be measured noninvasively by optical spectroscopy. METHODS: Noninvasive screening for diabetes has been evaluated in an 18-site study involving a cohort of 2793 subjects meeting American Diabetes Association-based screening criteria. Subjects were measured with a specialized skin fluorimeter and also received traditional blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin tests. RESULTS: Retrospective results indicated that the noninvasive technology measuring dermal fluorescence is more sensitive at detecting abnormal glucose tolerance than either fasting plasma glucose or glycated hemoglobin A1C. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that noninvasive measurement of dermal fluorescence may be an effective tool to identify individuals at risk for diabetes and its complications. The noninvasive technology yields immediate results, and since measuring dermal fluorescence requires no blood draws or patient fasting, the instrument may be well suited for opportunistic screening.

Noninvasive type 2 diabetes screening: superior sensitivity to fasting plasma glucose and A1C.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the performance of a novel noninvasive technology to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and A1C tests for detecting undiagnosed diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The design was a head-to-head evaluation in a naïve population. Consented subjects received FPG and A1C tests and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Subjects were also measured by a noninvasive device that detects the fluorescence of skin advanced glycation end products. A total of 351 subjects participated. RESULTS: Subjects with 2-h OGTT values > or = 140 mg/dl defined the positive screening class. A total of 84 subjects (23.9% prevalence) screened positive. The performances of the noninvasive device, FPG, and A1C were evaluated for sensitivity and specificity against this classification. At the impaired fasting glucose threshold (FPG = 100 mg/dl), the FPG testing sensitivity was 58% and the specificity was 77.4%. At that same specificity, the sensitivity for A1C testing was 63.8%, while the noninvasive testing sensitivity was 74.7%. The sensitivity advantage of the noninvasive device over both blood tests for detecting diabetes and precursors was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The noninvasive technology showed clinical performance advantages over both FPG and A1C testing. The sensitivity differential indicated that the noninvasive device is capable of identifying 28.8% more individuals in the OGTT-defined positive screening class than FPG testing and 17.1% more than A1C testing. The combination of higher sensitivity and greater convenience--rapid results with no fasting or blood draws--makes the device well suited for opportunistic screening.