4.5 Article

Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the adult Russian population (NATION study)

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 115, Issue -, Pages 90-95

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.02.010

Keywords

Diabetes mellitus type 2; Epidemiological study; Undiagnosed diabetes mellitus; Prevalence; Russia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To estimate type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) prevalence in Russian adults. Methods: NATION is a national, epidemiological, cross-sectional study, conducted in Russia. In adults (aged 20-79 years), recruitment was stratified by age, sex, geographic region and settlement type to obtain a representative sample. Recruitment was in public areas with high numbers of people. T2DM was diagnosed by glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (diabetes: HbA1c >= 6.5% [>= 48 mmol/mol]; pre-diabetes: HbA1c >= 5.7 to <6.5% [>= 39 to <48 mmol/mol]). Socio-demographic and anthropometric data were collected. Results: Blood samples from 26,620 subjects were available. Overall, 5.4% were diagnosed with T2DM (previously diagnosed: 2.5%; previously undiagnosed: 2.9%); 19.3% were prediabetic. T2DM prevalence increased with age (up to 70 years) and was higher among females than males (6.1% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). The estimated proportion of subjects with prediabetes and T2DM tended to increase with increasing body mass index. T2DM prevalence was higher in rural versus urban populations (6.7% vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In the Russian adult population, 19.3% had pre-diabetes, T2DM prevalence was 5.4%, and 54% of subjects with diabetes were previously undiagnosed. These results may help to develop a new T2DM predictive, preventative and management programme in Russia. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available