PURPOSE Screening guidelines for type 2 diabetes recommend targeting high-risk individuals. Our objective was to assess whether diagnosis of type 2 diabetes based on opportunistic targeted screening results in lower vascular event rates compared with diagnosis on the basis of clinical signs or symptoms. METHODS In a prospective, nonrandomized, observational study, we enrolled patients aged 45 to 75 years from 10 family practices in the Netherlands with a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, detected either by (1) opportunistic targeted screening (n = 359) or (2) clinical signs or symptoms (n = 206). Patients in both groups received the same guideline-concordant diabetes care. The main group outcome measure was a composite of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD), nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. RESULTS Baseline vascular disease was more prevalent in the opportunistic targeted screening group, mainly ischemic heart disease (12.3% vs 3.9%, P =.001) and nephropathy (16.9% vs 7.1%, P =.002). After a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (SD = 2.4 years) and 7.1 years (SD = 2.7 years) for the opportunistic targeted screening and clinical diagnosis groups, respectively, composite primary event rates did not differ signif cantly between the 2 groups (9.5% vs 10.2%, P =.78; adjusted hazard ratio 0.67, 95% conf dence interval, 0.36-1.25; P =.21). There were also no signif cant differences in the separate event rates of deaths from CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal strokes. CONCLUSIONS Opportunistic targeted screening for type 2 diabetes detected patients with higher CVD morbidity at baseline when compared with clinical diagnosis but showed similar CVD mortality and major CVD morbidity after 7.7 years. Opportunistic targeted screening and guided care appears to improve vascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes in primary care.