Kathleen E. Bainbridge

Full Accounting of Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes in the U.S. Population in 1988–1994 and 2005–2006

OBJECTIVE—We examined the prevalences of diagnosed diabetes, and undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes using fasting and 2-h oral glucose tolerance test values, in the U.S. during 2005–2006. We then compared the prevalences of these conditions with those in 1988–1994. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—In 2005–2006, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey included a probability sample of 7,267 people aged ≥12 years. Participants were classified according to glycemic status by interview for diagnosed diabetes and by fasting and 2-h glucoses measured in subsamples. RESULTS—In 2005–2006, the crude prevalence of total diabetes in people aged ≥20 years was 12.9%, of which ∼40% was undiagnosed. In people aged ≥20 years, the crude prevalence of impaired fasting glucose was 25.7% and of impaired glucose tolerance was 13.8%, with almost 30% having either. Over 40% of individuals had diabetes or pre-diabetes. Almost one-third of the elderly had diabetes, and three-quarters had diabetes or pre-diabetes. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, age- and sex-standardized prevalence of diagnosed diabetes was approximately twice as high in non-Hispanic blacks (P < 0.0001) and Mexican Americans (P = 0.0001), whereas undiagnosed diabetes was not higher. Crude prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in people aged ≥20 years rose from 5.1% in 1988–1994 to 7.7% in 2005–2006 (P = 0.0001); this was significant after accounting for differences in age and sex, particularly in non-Hispanic blacks. Prevalences of undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes were generally stable, although the proportion of total diabetes that was undiagnosed decreased in Mexican Americans. CONCLUSIONS—Over 40% of people aged ≥20 years have hyperglycemic conditions, and prevalence is higher in minorities. Diagnosed diabetes has increased over time, but other conditions have been relatively stable.

Prevalence of Diabetes and High Risk for Diabetes Using A1C Criteria in the U.S. Population in 1988–2006

OBJECTIVE We examined prevalences of previously diagnosed diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes and high risk for diabetes using recently suggested A1C criteria in the U.S. during 2003–2006. We compared these prevalences to those in earlier surveys and those using glucose criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In 2003–2006, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey included a probability sample of 14,611 individuals aged ≥12 years. Participants were classified on glycemic status by interview for diagnosed diabetes and by A1C, fasting, and 2-h glucose challenge values measured in subsamples. RESULTS Using A1C criteria, the crude prevalence of total diabetes in adults aged ≥20 years was 9.6% (20.4 million), of which 19.0% was undiagnosed (7.8% diagnosed, 1.8% undiagnosed using A1C ≥6.5%). Another 3.5% of adults (7.4 million) were at high risk for diabetes (A1C 6.0 to <6.5%). Prevalences were disproportionately high in the elderly. Age-/sex-standardized prevalence was more than two times higher in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans versus non-Hispanic whites for diagnosed, undiagnosed, and total diabetes (P < 0.003); standardized prevalence at high risk for diabetes was more than two times higher in non-Hispanic blacks versus non-Hispanic whites and Mexican Americans (P < 0.00001). Since 1988–1994, diagnosed diabetes generally increased, while the percent of diabetes that was undiagnosed and the percent at high risk of diabetes generally decreased. Using A1C criteria, prevalences of undiagnosed diabetes and high risk of diabetes were one-third that and one-tenth that, respectively, using glucose criteria. CONCLUSIONS Although A1C detects much lower prevalences than glucose criteria, hyperglycemic conditions remain high in the U.S., and elderly and minority groups are disproportionately affected.

Hearing Loss in an Aging American Population: Extent, Impact, and Management

Despite contributing substantially to disability in the United States, age-related hearing loss is an underappreciated public health concern. Loss of hearing sensitivity has been documented in two-thirds of adults aged 70 years and older and has been associated with communication difficulties, lower health-related quality of life, and decreased physical and cognitive function. Management strategies for age-related hearing loss are costly, yet the indirect costs due to lost productivity among people with communication difficulties are also substantial and likely to grow. Hearing aids can improve health-related quality of life, but the majority of people with documented hearing loss do not report using them. Uncovering effective means to improve the utilization of hearing health care services is essential for meeting the hearing health care demands of our aging population. The importance of hearing for general well-being warrants an effort to enhance awareness among the general population of the indications of hearing loss and options for assistance.

Risk factors for hearing impairment among U.S. adults with diabetes: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to examine the risk factors of low/mid-frequency and high-frequency hearing impairment among a nationally representative sample of diabetic adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data came from 536 participants, aged 20–69 years, with diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes who completed audiometric testing during 1999–2004 in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We defined hearing impairment as the pure-tone average >25 dB hearing level of pure-tone thresholds at low/mid-frequencies (500; 1,000; and 2,000 Hz) and high frequencies (3,000; 4,000; 6,000; and 8,000 Hz) and identified independent risk factors using logistic regression. RESULTS Controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and marital status, odds ratios for associations with low/mid-frequency hearing impairment were 2.20 (95% CI 1.28–3.79) for HDL <40 mg/dL and 3.55 (1.57–8.03) for poor health. Controlling for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and income-to-poverty ratio, odds ratios for associations with high-frequency hearing impairment were 4.39 (1.26–15.26) for history of coronary heart disease and 4.42 (1.26–15.45) for peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS Low HDL, coronary heart disease, peripheral neuropathy, and having poor health are potentially preventable correlates of hearing impairment for people with diabetes. Glycemic control, years since diagnosis, and type of glycemic medication were not associated with hearing impairment.

Potential Mediators of Diabetes-Related Hearing Impairment in the U.S. Population: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004

OBJECTIVE We examined potential mediators of the reported association between diabetes and hearing impairment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data come from 1,508 participants, aged 40–69 years, who completed audiometric testing during 1999–2004 in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We defined hearing impairment as the pure-tone average >25 decibels hearing level of pure-tone thresholds at low/mid (500, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz) and high (3,000, 4,000, 6,000, and 8,000 Hz) frequencies. Using logistic regression, we examined whether controlling for vascular or neuropathic conditions, cardiovascular risk factors, glycemia, or inflammation diminished the association between diabetes and hearing impairment. RESULTS Diabetes was associated with a 100% increased odds of low/mid-frequency hearing impairment (odds ratio 2.03 [95% CI 1.32–3.10]) and a 67% increased odds of high-frequency hearing impairment (1.67 [1.14–2.44]) in preliminary models after controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, smoking, and occupational noise exposure. Adjusting for peripheral neuropathy attenuated the association with low/mid-frequency hearing impairment (1.70 [1.02–2.82]). Adjusting for albuminuria and C-reactive protein attenuated the association with high-frequency hearing impairment (1.54 [1.02–2.32] and 1.50 [1.01–2.23], respectively). Diabetes was not associated with high-frequency hearing impairment after controlling for A1C (1.09 [0.60–1.99]) but remained associated with low/mid-frequency impairment. We found no evidence suggesting that our observed relationship between diabetes and hearing impairment is due to hypertension or dyslipidemia. CONCLUSIONS Mechanisms related to neuropathic or microvascular factors, inflammation, or hyperglycemia may be mediating the association of diabetes and hearing impairment.

Potential Mediators of Diabetes-Related Hearing Impairment In The U.S. Population – NHANES 1999-2004

OBJECTIVE We examined potential mediators of the reported association between diabetes and hearing impairment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data come from 1,508 participants, aged 40–69 years, who completed audiometric testing during 1999–2004 in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We defined hearing impairment as the pure-tone average >25 decibels hearing level of pure-tone thresholds at low/mid (500, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz) and high (3,000, 4,000, 6,000, and 8,000 Hz) frequencies. Using logistic regression, we examined whether controlling for vascular or neuropathic conditions, cardiovascular risk factors, glycemia, or inflammation diminished the association between diabetes and hearing impairment. RESULTS Diabetes was associated with a 100% increased odds of low/mid-frequency hearing impairment (odds ratio 2.03 [95% CI 1.32–3.10]) and a 67% increased odds of high-frequency hearing impairment (1.67 [1.14–2.44]) in preliminary models after controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, smoking, and occupational noise exposure. Adjusting for peripheral neuropathy attenuated the association with low/mid-frequency hearing impairment (1.70 [1.02–2.82]). Adjusting for albuminuria and C-reactive protein attenuated the association with high-frequency hearing impairment (1.54 [1.02–2.32] and 1.50 [1.01–2.23], respectively). Diabetes was not associated with high-frequency hearing impairment after controlling for A1C (1.09 [0.60–1.99]) but remained associated with low/mid-frequency impairment. We found no evidence suggesting that our observed relationship between diabetes and hearing impairment is due to hypertension or dyslipidemia. CONCLUSIONS Mechanisms related to neuropathic or microvascular factors, inflammation, or hyperglycemia may be mediating the association of diabetes and hearing impairment.

Panel 1 Epidemiology, Natural History, and Risk Factors

Background The First International Symposium on Recent Advances in Otitis Media (OM) with Effusion was held in Columbus, Ohio, in 1975. The symposium has been organized in the United States every 4 years since, followed by a research conference to (a) assess major research accomplishments, (b) identify important research questions and opportunities, (c) develop consensus on definitions and terminology, and (d) establish priorities with short- and long-term research goals. One of the principal areas reviewed quadrennially is Epidemiology, Natural History, and Risk Factors. Objective To provide a review of recent literature on the epidemiology, natural history, and risk factors for OM. Data Sources and Review Methods A search of OM articles in English published July 2007 to June 2011 was conducted using PubMed and related databases. Those with findings judged of importance for epidemiology, public health, and/or statistical methods were reviewed. Results The literature has continued to expand, increasing understanding of the worldwide burden of OM in childhood, complications from treatment failures, and comorbidities. Novel risk factors, including genetic factors, have been examined for OM susceptibility. Population-based studies in Canada, the United States, and other countries confirmed reductions in OM prevalence. Although most studies concentrated on acute OM (AOM) or OM with effusion (OME), a few examined severe chronic suppurative OM (CSOM), a major public health problem in developing countries and for certain indigenous populations around the world. Conclusions and Implications for Practice Recent publications have reinforced earlier epidemiological findings, while extending our knowledge in human population groups with high burden of OM.

Diabetes Knowledge and Its Relationship With Achieving Treatment Recommendations in a National Sample of People With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE We examined the prevalence of knowledge of A1C, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol (ABC) levels and goals among people with diabetes, its variation by patient characteristics, and whether knowledge was associated with achieving levels of ABC control recommended for the general diabetic population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data came from 1,233 adults who self-reported diabetes in the 2005–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants reported their last ABC level and goals specified by their physician (not validated by medical record data). Analysis included descriptive statistics and logistic regression. RESULTS Among participants tested in the past year, 48% stated their last A1C level. Overall, 63% stated their last blood pressure level and 22% stated their last LDL cholesterol level. Knowledge of ABC levels was greatest in non-Hispanic whites, lowest in Mexican Americans, and higher with more education and income (all P ≤ 0.02). Demographic associations were similar for those reporting physician-specified ABC goals at the American Diabetes Association–recommended levels (A1C <7%, blood pressure <130/80 mmHg, and LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL). Nineteen percent of participants stated that their provider did not specify an A1C goal compared with 47% and 41% for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol goals, respectively. For people who self-reported A1C <7.0%, 83% had an actual A1C <7.0%. Otherwise, participant knowledge was not significantly associated with risk factor control, except for in those who knew their last LDL cholesterol level (P = 0.046 for A1C <7.0%). Results from logistic regression corroborated these findings. CONCLUSIONS Ample opportunity exists to improve ABC knowledge. Diabetes education should include behavior change components in addition to information on ABC clinical measures.

Mitigating case mix factors by choice of glycemic control performance measure threshold.

OBJECTIVE—Performance measures are tools for assessing quality of care but may be influenced by patient factors. We investigated how currently endorsed performance measures for glycemic control in diabetes may be influenced by case mix composition. We assessed differences in A1C performance measure threshold attainment by case mix factors for A1C >9% and examined how lowering the threshold to A1C >8% or >7% changed these differences. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Using data from the 1999–2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 843 adults self-reporting diabetes, we computed the mean difference in A1C threshold attainment of >9, >8, and >7% by various case mix factors. The mean difference is the average percentage point difference in threshold attainment for population groups compared with that for the overall population. RESULTS—Diabetes medication was the only factor for which the difference in threshold attainment increased at lower thresholds, with mean differences of 5.7 percentage points at A1C >9% (reference), 10.1 percentage points at A1C >8% (P < 0.05), and 14.1 percentage points at A1C >7% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS—As 87% of U.S. adults have A1C <9%, a performance measure threshold of >9% will not drive major improvements in glycemic control. Lower thresholds do not exacerbate differences in threshold attainment for most factors. Reporting by diabetes medication use may compensate for heterogeneous case mix when a performance measure threshold of A1C >8% or lower is used.

Factors Associated With Phantom Odor Perception Among US Adults: Findings From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Importance Phantom odor perception can be a debilitating condition. Factors associated with phantom odor perception have not been reported using population-based epidemiologic data. Objective To estimate the prevalence of phantom odor perception among US adults 40 years and older and identify factors associated with this condition. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cross-sectional study with complex sampling design, 7417 adults 40 years and older made up a nationally representative sample from data collected in 2011 through 2014 as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Exposures Sociodemographic characteristics, cigarette and alcohol use, head injury, persistent dry mouth, smell function, and general health status. Main Outcomes and Measures Phantom odor perception ascertained as report of unpleasant, bad, or burning odor when no actual odor exists. Results Of the 7417 participants in the study, 52.8% (3862) were women, the mean (SD) age was 58 (12) years, and the prevalence of phantom odor perception occurred in 534 participants, which was 6.5% of the population (95% CI, 5.7%-7.5%). Phantom odor prevalence varied considerably by age and sex. Women 60 years and older reported phantom odors less commonly (7.5% [n = 935] and 5.5% [n = 937] among women aged 60-69 years and 70 years and older, respectively) than younger women (9.6% [n = 1028] and 10.1% [n = 962] among those aged 40-49 years and 50-59 years, respectively). The prevalence among men varied from 2.5% (n = 846) among men 70 years and older to 5.3% (n = 913) among men 60 to 69 years old. Phantom odor perception was 60% (n = 1602) to 65% (n = 2521) more likely among those with an income-to-poverty ratio of less than 3 compared with those in the highest income-to-poverty ratio group (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56; and OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.01-2.54 for income-to-poverty ratio <1.5 and 1.5-2.9, respectively). Health conditions associated with phantom odor perception included persistent dry mouth (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 2.17-4.24) and history of head injury (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.20-2.51). Conclusions and Relevance An age-related decline in the prevalence of phantom odor perception is observed in women but not in men. Only 11% (n = 64) of people who report phantom odor perception have discussed a taste or smell problem with a clinician. Associations of phantom odor perception with poorer health and persistent dry mouth point to medication use as a potential explanation. Prevention of serious head injuries could have the added benefit of reducing phantom odor perception.