Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1741-8.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61422-6. Epub 2012 Oct 4.

Screening for type 2 diabetes and population mortality over 10 years (ADDITION-Cambridge): a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Screening for type 2 diabetes and population mortality over 10 years (ADDITION-Cambridge): a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Rebecca K Simmons et al. Lancet. .

Abstract

Background: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, uncertainty persists around the benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effect of a population-based stepwise screening programme on mortality.

Methods: In a pragmatic parallel group, cluster-randomised trial, 33 general practices in eastern England were randomly assigned by the method of minimisation in an unbalanced design to: screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment for people diagnosed with diabetes (n=15); screening plus routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines (n=13); and a no-screening control group (n=5). The study population consisted of 20,184 individuals aged 40-69 years (mean 58 years), at high risk of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes, on the basis of a previously validated risk score. In screening practices, individuals were invited to a stepwise programme including random capillary blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) tests, a fasting capillary blood glucose test, and a confirmatory oral glucose tolerance test. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. All participants were flagged for mortality surveillance by the England and Wales Office of National Statistics. Analysis was by intention-to-screen and compared all-cause mortality rates between screening and control groups. This study is registered, number ISRCTN86769081.

Findings: Of 16,047 high-risk individuals in screening practices, 15,089 (94%) were invited for screening during 2001-06, 11,737 (73%) attended, and 466 (3%) were diagnosed with diabetes. 4137 control individuals were followed up. During 184,057 person-years of follow up (median duration 9·6 years [IQR 8·9-9·9]), there were 1532 deaths in the screening practices and 377 in control practices (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·25). We noted no significant reduction in cardiovascular (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·75-1·38), cancer (1·08, 0·90-1·30), or diabetes-related mortality (1·26, 0·75-2·10) associated with invitation to screening.

Interpretation: In this large UK sample, screening for type 2 diabetes in patients at increased risk was not associated with a reduction in all-cause, cardiovascular, or diabetes-related mortality within 10 years. The benefits of screening might be smaller than expected and restricted to individuals with detectable disease.

Funding: Wellcome Trust; UK Medical Research Council; National Health Service research and development support; UK National Institute for Health Research; University of Aarhus, Denmark; Bio-Rad.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ADDITION-Cambridge screening and diagnostic procedure HbA1c=glycated haemoglobin.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ADDITION-Cambridge trial profile RC=screening followed by routine care of patients with screen-detected diabetes according to national guidelines. *IT=screening followed by intensive treatment of patients with screen-detected diabetes.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cumulative incidence of death in the screening and no screening control groups in the ADDITION-Cambridge trial

Comment in

References

    1. Simmons RK, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Griffin SJ. Screening for type 2 diabetes: an update of the evidence. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010;12:838–844. - PubMed
    1. Department of Health . Putting prevention first. Vascular checks: risk assessment and management. Department of Health; London: 2008.
    1. Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Simmons RK, Williams KM. The ADDITION-Cambridge trial protocol: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of screening for type 2 diabetes and intensive treatment for screen-detected patients. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:136. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eborall HC, Griffin SJ, Prevost AT, Kinmonth AL, French DP, Sutton S. Psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes: controlled trial and comparative study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;335:486. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Paddison CA, Eborall HC, Sutton S. Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;339:b4535. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data