Pages

Showing posts with label prediabetes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prediabetes. Show all posts

Wednesday, 16 July 2014

Prediabetes label unhelpful, experts argue

reposted from: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/07July/Pages/Prediabetes-label-unhelpful-experts-argue.aspx
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.

“Pre-diabetes label ‘worthless’, researchers claim,” reports the BBC.
The headline is based on an opinion piece published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by John Yudkin and Victor Montori, both of whom are professors of medicine.
They argue that diagnosing people with “prediabetes” puts people at risk of unnecessary medicalisation and creates an unsustainable burden on healthcare systems.
The piece is part of an ongoing BMJ series called “Too much medicine”, which is examining what is known as over-medicalising  treating “problems” that don’t actually require treatment.
They argue that money would be better spent changing food, education, health and economic policies.
This is an opinion piece. Although the authors support their opinions with studies, other evidence available could contradict their views.

Not that one

One of the authors, John Yudkin, should not be confused with the nutritionist and anti-sugar campaigner of the same name – not least, because the latter died in 1995.

What is meant by ‘prediabetes’?

Prediabetes is used to describe people at risk of diabetes because they have impaired glucose metabolism, but who do not meet the criteria for diabetes and often have no noticeable symptoms.
It is a term that was introduced by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), but has not been accepted by other health organisations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO).
It may be defined as:
  • impaired glucose tolerance
  • above normal glucose blood concentration after fasting
  • above normal glycated haemoglobin (a marker of average blood glucose concentration)
Supporters of the term’s usage argue that it allows doctors to identify high-risk patients, so they can be treated in order to prevent diabetes from occurring.

What objections do the authors have about the use of the term?

The authors point out that there has been little support for the ADA’s prediabetes label from other expert groups, including WHO, the International Diabetes Federation and the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
The authors say this is because the ADA has lowered the thresholds for impaired fasting glucose and glycated haemoglobin. Because it encompasses all three aspects of impaired glucose metabolism (impaired glucose tolerance, above normal fasting blood glucose, above normal glycated haemoglobin), the lowered thresholds have created a large, poorly characterised and heterogeneous (mixed) category of glucose intolerance.
In other words, the diagnostic criteria are now so broad (in the opinion of the authors) that it is, essentially, useless.
The authors say that using the ADA’s definition of prediabetes would result in two to three times as many people being diagnosed with impaired glucose metabolism. This would lead to 50% of Chinese adults being diagnosed with prediabetes – over half a billion people.
The authors also question the value of diagnosing people with prediabetes.
They point out that the drugs used to treat people with prediabetes in order to stop them developing diabetes are often the same as the drugs they would take if they actually developed diabetes.
The side effects of these drugs must be measured against the fact that many people with prediabetes, who remain untreated, will not go on to develop the condition.
They also discuss the merits of lifestyle interventions, such as regular exercise and improved diet.
They point out that these types of interventions are of use for all adults, so they question the wisdom of only promoting these interventions to specific groups. A better use of campaigning would be to target all adults, they say.

What dangers or risks do they claim could occur by using the term?

The authors suggest that a label of prediabetes, while not causing any physical symptoms, could still cause:
  • problems with self-image
  • anxiety about future complications
  • challenges with insurance and employment
  • a need for medical care and treatment
  • increased healthcare costs
  • medication side effects, if prediabetes is treated with drugs
In their opinion, the diagnosis would cause more problems than it solves.

What do the researchers suggest instead?

The researchers say that the risk factors for developing a whole host of chronic diseases overlap, and that money would be better spent changing food, education, health and economic policies.

What should I do if I have been told I have prediabetes or that I am at high risk of developing diabetes?

If you have been told you have prediabetes, or that you have a high risk of developing diabetes, you can reduce your risk of developing the illness by:
Read more advice about lowering your diabetes risk.
Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS ChoicesFollow Behind the Headlines on TwitterJoin the Healthy Evidence forum.

Links to the headlines

Links to the science

Yudkin JS, Montori VM. The epidemic of pre-diabetes: the medicine and the politics. BMJ. Published online July 15 2014

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

One in three adults in England 'has prediabetes'

reposted from: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/06June/Pages/One-in-three-adults-in-England-has-prediabetes.aspx
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.

"One in three adults in England 'on cusp' of diabetes," BBC News and others report. The media reports are based on a study that estimated that 35.3% of adults in the UK now have prediabetes (also known as borderline diabetes).
Prediabetes is where blood sugar levels are abnormally high, but lower than the threshold for diagnosing diabetes. It is estimated that around 5-10% of people with prediabetes will go on to progress to "full-blown" type 2 diabetes in any given years.
Researchers analysed information from the Health Survey for England (HSE). This is a survey that combines questionnaire-based answers with physical measurements and the analysis of blood samples from a representative sample of the English population.
This study found that there has been a significant increase between 2003 and 2011 in the proportion of people aged 16 or older with prediabetes, from 11.6% in 2003 to 35.3% in 2013.
Known risk factors, confirmed in this study, include age (40 and above), body mass index (25 and above), being of south Asian ethnicity, and having high blood pressure.
If you think you may be at high risk of prediabetes, you can ask your GP for a blood test. It is often possible to prevent the condition progressing into diabetes proper through lifestyle changes, such as improving your diet and exercising more.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Florida and the University of Leicester, and was somewhat surprisingly funded by the US Department of Defense.
It was published in the peer-reviewed BMJ Open, an open accessmedical journal, so the study is free to read online.
This study was accurately reported in the UK media, with many articles also helpfully outlining the complications of diabetes, its impact on public health, and some relevant contextual information.
For example, this included information about the NHS Health Check programme, which invites people between the ages of 40 and 74 to have a check to assess their risk of heart disease, stroke, kidney disease and diabetes, and to give support and advice to help people reduce or manage their risk.
But as the NHS Health Check programme is in its infancy, it is hard to estimate what the likely take-up will be in the future and what impact it will have on public health.

What kind of research was this?

This was a cross-sectional study that aimed to report trends in the prevalence of prediabetes among people aged 16 or older in England.
Cross-sectional studies are the ideal way of determining how many people have a condition.

What did the research involve?

The research used information collected by the Health Survey for England (HSE) in the years 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2011.
The HSE is an annual population-based survey that combines questionnaire-based answers with physical measurements and the analysis of blood samples from a random sample of participants.
People were classified as having prediabetes if they had glycated haemoglobin (an indicator of blood sugar levels) between 5.7% and 6.4% and had not previously been diagnosed with diabetes.
Glycated haemoglobin is formed when haemoglobin is exposed to glucose in the blood. As the amount of glucose in the blood increases, the fraction of haemoglobin that is glycated increases.
Diabetes is diagnosed when the level is 6.5% or above. However, there is no internationally agreed lower level for prediabetes.
The American Diabetes Association uses 5.7% as the lower cut-off level, but a UK expert group for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend 6.0-6.4%.

What were the basic results?

The prevalence of prediabetes increased over the study period. It was:
  • 11.6% in 2003
  • 20.4% in 2006
  • 32.6% in 2009
  • 35.3% in 2011
Age, being overweight, obesity, blood pressure level and cholesterol level exhibited significant relationships with prediabetes in all years that these were measured.
People with greater socioeconomic deprivation were more likely to have prediabetes in 2003 and 2006, but the relationship was no longer significant in 2009 and 2011.
The researchers found that predictors of prediabetes in 2003 and 2011 included:
  • being 40 years or older
  • being of south Asian ethnicity
  • having a high body mass index (BMI) of 25 or over
  • having been diagnosed with high blood pressure
  • being socioeconomically deprived (being in the second most deprived quintile)

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded that, "There has been a marked increase in the proportion of adults in England with prediabetes. The socioeconomically deprived are at substantial risk.
"In the absence of concerted and effective efforts to reduce risk, the number of people with diabetes is likely to increase steeply in coming years."

Conclusion

This study indicates that there had been an increase between 2003 and 2011 in the proportion of people aged 16 or older with prediabetes, with more than a third of adults in 2011 having prediabetes.
The study is useful because it is based on information from the Health Survey for England (HSE), which sampled a representative sample of the English population.
However, the researchers defined prediabetes using cut-offs used by the American Diabetes Association (5.7-6.4%), but in the UKNICE recommends higher cut-offs to identify people at high risk of diabetes (6.0-6.4%).
There are several ways you can reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes:
Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS ChoicesFollow Behind the Headlines on TwitterJoin the Healthy Evidence forum.