ObjectivesTo determine if point-of-care (POC) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is sufficiently accurate in real-world remote settings to predict or exclude the diagnosis of diabetes based on laboratory HbA1c measurements.DesignCross-sectional study comparing POC capillary HbA1c results with corresponding venous HbA1c levels measured in a reference laboratory.ParticipantsAboriginal patients ≥15 years old who were due for diabetes screening at the participating clinics were invited to participate. Two hundred and fifty-five Aboriginal participants were enrolled and 241 were included in the analysis.Setting6 primary healthcare sites in the remote Kimberley region of Western Australia from September 2011 to November 2013.Main outcome measuresConcordance and mean differences between POC capillary blood HbA1c measurement and laboratory measurement of venous blood HbA1c level; POC capillary blood HbA1c equivalence value for screening for diabetes or a high risk of developing diabetes; sensitivity, specificity and positive-predictive value for diagnosing and screening for diabetes; barriers to conducting POC testing.ResultsConcordance between POC and laboratory results was good (ρ=0.88, p<0.001). The mean difference was −0.15% (95% limits of agreement, −0.67% to 0.36%). POC HbA1c measurements ≥6.5%, 48 mmol/mol had a specificity of 98.2% and sensitivity of 73.7% for laboratory measurements ≥6.5%. The POC equivalence value for screening for diabetes or a high risk of developing diabetes was ≥5.7%, 39 mmol/mol (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 76.7% for laboratory measurements ≥6.0%, 42 mmol/mol). Staff trained by other clinic staff ‘on the job’ performed as well as people with formal accredited training. Staff reported difficulty in maintaining formal accreditation.ConclusionsPOC HbA1c testing is sufficiently accurate to be a useful component in screening for, and diagnosing, diabetes in remote communities. Limited local training is adequate to produce results comparable to laboratory results and accreditation processes need to reflect this.
Objective: To quantify screening rate for gestational diabetes mellitus and completion of oral glucose tolerance test in rural and remote Western Australia. Design and participants: Retrospective audit of 551 antenatal records from women of 16 years and older without pre-existing diabetes and with singleton pregnancies delivered in 2013. Main outcome measures: Number of women recorded screened for gestational diabetes mellitus in second or third trimester using oral glucose tolerance test or other tests; gestational diabetes mellitus rate. Results: Only 278 (50.5%) women were screened with oral glucose tolerance test; 113 (20.5%) had no record of any screening related to gestational diabetes mellitus. In a nested mixed-effects logistic regression model, women with a previous gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis, two or more risk factors (excluding ethnicity) or high-risk gestational diabetes mellitus ethnicity other than Australian Aboriginal were more likely to be screened, while Australian Aboriginal women were less likely to be screened with oral glucose tolerance test. Clinicians reported patient and clinician factors and logistical difficulties as reasons for the oral glucose tolerance test not being completed at their site. Of those screened with oral glucose tolerance test, a high rate of gestational diabetes mellitus was diagnosed (14.7% versus Western Australia state-wide average of 7.4%). Conclusion: Adherence to oral glucose tolerance test screening in rural Western Australia is inadequate for effective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus. Screening was not acceptable or available for a significant proportion of women at risk. Efforts to improve oral glucose tolerance test adherence and exploration of alternative gestational diabetes mellitus screening strategies are required.
The “Top End” of Australia is presently experiencing a gonorrhea epidemic. Gonococcal infection is usually limited to mucosal tissues but can lead to disseminated gonococcal infection (DGI), joint destruction, and severe sepsis. This study aimed to explore the epidemiology, presentation, management, and health-care impact of DGI in the Top End of the Northern Territory. Health records of patients diagnosed with proven, probable, or possible DGI between January 2010 and September 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. One hundred six cases of DGI were identified. Ninety-four patients (88.7%) were Indigenous Australian. The incidence of proven and probable DGI in the Indigenous population was 27.1 per 100,000 person-years, compared with 7.1 in the Top End population overall. Of 7,540 laboratory-proven gonococcal notifications, 1.3% (n = 97) were complicated by DGI. The highest incidence was in the 15–19-year age-group. Thirteen cases (12.3%) occurred in patients younger than 15 years. High rates of comorbid alcohol misuse, diabetes, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatic fever, and complement deficiency were observed. The “classic triad” of tenosynovitis, dermatitis, and polyarthralgia was rare. Ninety-four patients (88.7%) presented with purulent arthritis. Disseminated gonococcal infection was estimated to cause at least 10.0% of nonpenetrating septic arthritis in the Top End and 1,234 days of hospitalization during the study period. DGI is an important cause of morbidity in the Top End, particularly in the young, remote Indigenous Australian population. Clinical presentation varies from classical teaching. Urgent action in the health and community sector is required, particularly for at-risk populations, to prevent further debilitating and costly complications of gonococcal infection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.