Search

Impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) identify individuals at high risk for progression to diabetes. Whether IFG and IGT have comparable coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factor profiles, independent of their progression to diabetes, is unclear. We determined CHD risk factor levels in 937 nondiabetic individuals at baseline and biannually over a mean follow-up period of 9.5 years. Subjects had no known CHD at baseline and had > or =2 (mean 4.2) oral glucose tolerance tests during follow-up. We classified glucose tolerance categories using American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria or modified criteria that redefined IFG as 100-126 mg/dl, creating a similar baseline prevalence of IFG and IGT. Subjects who developed diabetes during follow-up were excluded from our analysis. Baseline CHD risk factors were similar in subjects with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and IFG, but significantly more atherogenic in those with IGT or IFG + IGT. These findings were unchanged when the modified criteria were used, suggesting that IGT is phenotypically different from IFG and is associated with increased levels of CHD risk factors. Subjects with isolated IFG had similar levels of CHD risk factors as NGT subjects, even when IFG was redefined with a lower threshold. Although CHD risk factors were increased in the IGT group, the incidence of CHD events was not significantly different among groups, perhaps owing to the limited number of events. The differences in CHD risk factors among prediabetic groups may have clinical implications for screening strategies and CHD risk stratification of individuals with IFG and IGT.

The natural history of progression from normal glucose tolerance (NGT) to impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and type 2 diabetes is not well defined. We studied this progression using biennial oral glucose tolerance tests performed in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging and survival analysis to assess progression from NGT to abnormal fasting plasma glucose (FPG; > or =6.1 mmol/l), abnormal 2-h plasma glucose (2hPG; > or =7.8 mmol/l), IFG (FPG 6.1-6.9 mmol/l, 2hPG < or =7.8 mmol/l), and IGT (FPG <6.1 mmol/l, 2hPG 7.8-11.0 mmol/l), and from IFG-IGT to diabetes (FPG > or =7.0 mmol/l or 2hPG > or =11.1 mmol/l). At baseline, the 815 subjects had a mean age of 57 years, 35% were women, and 60% had NGT. Of the 488 subjects with NGT, over half were followed for at least 10 years. By 10 years, 14% had progressed to abnormal FPG and 48% to abnormal 2hPG. Of the 267 subjects who progressed to IFG-IGT, 216 had additional follow-up. By 10 years, 8% of these progressed to diabetes by FPG whereas 27% progressed by 2hPG. In subsidiary analyses, we defined "abnormal" FPG as > or =5.55 mmol/l and "diabetic" FPG as > or =6.1 mmol/l, making the baseline prevalence of IFG similar to that of IGT. By these criteria, 43% progressed to abnormal FPG and 43% to abnormal 2hPG by 10 years of follow-up; among subjects developing impaired FPG or 2hPG, 22% progressed to diabetes by FPG whereas 17% progressed by 2hPG at 10 years. Nonetheless, 42% of subjects developing abnormal FPG did not develop abnormal 2hPG, and vice versa. We conclude that, although phenotypic differences in rates of progression are partly a function of diagnostic thresholds, fasting and postchallenge hyperglycemia may represent phenotypes with distinct natural histories in the evolution of type 2 diabetes.