Who Definition Of Diabetes 2016?

Overview – Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs either when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin or when the body cannot effectively use the insulin it produces. Insulin is a hormone that regulates blood glucose. Hyperglycaemia, also called raised blood glucose or raised blood sugar, is a common effect of uncontrolled diabetes and over time leads to serious damage to many of the body’s systems, especially the nerves and blood vessels.

In 2014, 8.5% of adults aged 18 years and older had diabetes. In 2019, diabetes was the direct cause of 1.5 million deaths and 48% of all deaths due to diabetes occurred before the age of 70 years. Another 460 000 kidney disease deaths were caused by diabetes, and raised blood glucose causes around 20% of cardiovascular deaths (1),

Between 2000 and 2019, there was a 3% increase in age-standardized mortality rates from diabetes. In lower-middle-income countries, the mortality rate due to diabetes increased 13%. By contrast, the probability of dying from any one of the four main noncommunicable diseases (cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases or diabetes) between the ages of 30 and 70 decreased by 22% globally between 2000 and 2019.

What is the best definition of diabetes mellitus?

(dy-uh-BEE-teez MEH-lih-tus) A disease in which the body does not control the amount of glucose (a type of sugar) in the blood and the kidneys make a large amount of urine. This disease occurs when the body does not make enough insulin or does not use it the way it should.

What is diabetes according to CDC?

With diabetes, your body either doesn’t make enough insulin or can’t use it as well as it should. Diabetes is a chronic (long-lasting) health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy. Your body breaks down most of the food you eat into sugar (glucose) and releases it into your bloodstream.

When your blood sugar goes up, it signals your pancreas to release insulin. Insulin acts like a key to let the blood sugar into your body’s cells for use as energy. With diabetes, your body doesn’t make enough insulin or can’t use it as well as it should. When there isn’t enough insulin or cells stop responding to insulin, too much blood sugar stays in your bloodstream.

Over time, that can cause serious health problems, such as heart disease, vision loss, and kidney disease, There isn’t a cure yet for diabetes, but losing weight, eating healthy food, and being active can really help. Other things you can do to help:

Take medicine as prescribed. Get diabetes self-management education and support. Make and keep health care appointments.

More than 37 million US adults have diabetes, and 1 in 5 of them don’t know they have it. Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. Diabetes is the No.1 cause of kidney failure, lower-limb amputations, and adult blindness. In the last 20 years, the number of adults diagnosed with diabetes has more than doubled,

What is the difference between type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus?

The main difference between the type 1 and type 2 diabetes is that type 1 diabetes is a genetic condition that often shows up early in life, and type 2 is mainly lifestyle-related and develops over time. With type 1 diabetes, your immune system is attacking and destroying the insulin-producing cells in your pancreas.

• Although type 1 and type 2 diabetes both have things in common, there are lots of differences.
• Like what causes them, who they affect, and how you should manage them.
• For a start, type 1 affects 8% of everyone with diabetes.
• While type 2 diabetes affects about 90%.
• Some people get confused between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

This can mean you have to explain that what works for one type doesn’t work for the other, and that there are different causes. The main thing to remember is that both are as serious as each other. Having high blood glucose (or sugar) levels can lead to serious health complications, no matter whether you have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

What is the new limit for diabetes?

Tests for type 1 and type 2 diabetes and prediabetes –

Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) test. This blood test, which doesn’t require not eating for a period of time (fasting), shows your average blood sugar level for the past 2 to 3 months. It measures the percentage of blood sugar attached to hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in red blood cells. The higher your blood sugar levels, the more hemoglobin you’ll have with sugar attached. An A1C level of 6.5% or higher on two separate tests means that you have diabetes. An A1C between 5.7% and 6.4% means that you have prediabetes. Below 5.7% is considered normal. Random blood sugar test. A blood sample will be taken at a random time. No matter when you last ate, a blood sugar level of 200 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) — 11.1 millimoles per liter (mmol/L) — or higher suggests diabetes. Fasting blood sugar test. A blood sample will be taken after you haven’t eaten anything the night before (fast). A fasting blood sugar level less than 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) is normal. A fasting blood sugar level from 100 to 125 mg/dL (5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L) is considered prediabetes. If it’s 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L) or higher on two separate tests, you have diabetes. Oral glucose tolerance test. For this test, you fast overnight. Then, the fasting blood sugar level is measured. Then you drink a sugary liquid, and blood sugar levels are tested regularly for the next two hours. A blood sugar level less than 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) is normal. A reading of more than 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) after two hours means you have diabetes. A reading between 140 and 199 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L and 11.0 mmol/L) means you have prediabetes.

If your provider thinks you may have type 1 diabetes, they may test your urine to look for the presence of ketones. Ketones are a byproduct produced when muscle and fat are used for energy. Your provider will also probably run a test to see if you have the destructive immune system cells associated with type 1 diabetes called autoantibodies.

What is the normal limit of diabetes?

Glucose Tolerance Test – This measures your blood sugar before and after you drink a liquid that contains glucose. You’ll fast (not eat) overnight before the test and have your blood drawn to determine your fasting blood sugar level. Then you’ll drink the liquid and have your blood sugar level checked 1 hour, 2 hours, and possibly 3 hours afterward.

What is diabetes definition Wikipedia?

Diabetes, also known as diabetes mellitus, is a group of metabolic disorders characterized by a high blood sugar level (hyperglycemia) over a prolonged period of time. Symptoms often include frequent urination, increased thirst and increased appetite.

What is type 1 diabetes CDC?

People of all ages can develop type 1 diabetes. If you have type 1 diabetes, your pancreas doesn’t make insulin or makes very little insulin. Insulin helps blood sugar enter the cells in your body for use as energy. Without insulin, blood sugar can’t get into cells and builds up in the bloodstream.

• High blood sugar is damaging to the body and causes many of the symptoms and complications of diabetes.
• Type 1 diabetes was once called insulin-dependent or juvenile diabetes.
• It usually develops in children, teens, and young adults, but it can happen at any age.
• Type 1 diabetes is less common than type 2 —about 5-10% of people with diabetes have type 1.

Currently, no one knows how to prevent type 1 diabetes, but it can be treated successfully by:

Following your doctor’s recommendations for living a healthy lifestyle. Managing your blood sugar. Getting regular health checkups. Getting diabetes self-management education and support,

If your child has type 1 diabetes—especially a young child—you’ll handle diabetes care on a day-to-day basis. Daily care will include serving healthy foods, giving insulin injections, and watching for and treating hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). You’ll also need to stay in close contact with your child’s health care team.

What is normal blood sugar according to age?

When you have diabetes, you should have good control of your blood sugar. If your blood sugar is not controlled, serious health problems called complications can happen to your body. Learn how to manage your blood sugar so that you can stay as healthy as possible. Know the basic steps for managing your diabetes. Poorly managed diabetes can lead to many health problems. Know how to:

Recognize and treat low blood sugar ( hypoglycemia )Recognize and treat high blood sugar ( hyperglycemia )Plan healthy meals Monitor your blood sugar (glucose)Take care of yourself when you are sick Find, buy, and store diabetes suppliesGet the checkups you need

If you take insulin, you should also know how to:

Give yourself insulinAdjust your insulin doses and the foods you eat to manage your blood sugar during exercise and on sick days

You should also live a healthy lifestyle.

Exercise at least 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week. Do muscle strengthening exercises 2 or more days a week.Avoid sitting for more than 30 minutes at a time.Try speed walking, swimming, or dancing. Pick an activity you enjoy. Always check with your health care provider before starting any new exercise plans.Follow your meal plan. Every meal is an opportunity to make a good choice for your diabetes management.

Take your medicines the way your provider recommends. Checking your blood sugar levels often and writing down, or using an app to track the results will tell you how well you are managing your diabetes. Talk to your doctor and diabetes educator about how often you should check your blood sugar.

Not everyone with diabetes needs to check their blood sugar every day. But some people may need to check it many times a day.If you have type 1 diabetes, check your blood sugar at least 4 times a day.

Usually, you will test your blood sugar before meals and at bedtime. You may also check your blood sugar:

After you eat out, particularly if you have eaten foods you don’t normally eatIf you feel sickBefore and after you exerciseIf you have a lot of stressIf you eat too muchIf you are taking new medicines that can affect your blood sugar

Keep a record for yourself and your provider. This will be a big help if you are having problems managing your diabetes. It will also tell you what works and what doesn’t work, to keep your blood sugar under control. Write down:

The time of dayYour blood sugar levelThe amount of carbohydrates or sugar you ateThe type and dose of your diabetes medicines or insulinThe type of exercise you do and for how longAny unusual events, such as feeling stressed, eating different foods, or being sick

Many glucose meters let you store this information. You and your provider should set a target goal for your blood sugar levels for different times during the day. If your blood sugar is higher than your goals for 3 days and you don’t know why, call your provider.

1. Random blood sugar values are often not that useful to your provider and this can be frustrating to people with diabetes.
2. Often fewer values with more information (meal description and time, exercise description and time, medicine dose and time) related to the blood sugar value are much more useful to help guide medicine decisions and dose adjustments.

For people with type 1 diabetes, the American Diabetes Association recommends that blood sugar targets be based on a person’s needs and goals. Talk to your doctor and diabetes educator about these goals. A general guideline is: Before meals, your blood sugar should be:

From 90 to 130 mg/dL (5.0 to 7.2 mmol/L) for adultsFrom 90 to 130 mg/dL (5.0 to 7.2 mmol/L) for children, 13 to 19 years oldFrom 90 to 180 mg/dL (5.0 to 10.0 mmol/L) for children, 6 to 12 years oldFrom 100 to 180 mg/dL (5.5 to 10.0 mmol/L) for children under 6 years old

After meals (1 to 2 hours after eating), your blood sugar should be:

Less than 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) for adults

At bedtime, your blood sugar should be:

From 90 to 150 mg/dL (5.0 to 8.3 mmol/L) for adultsFrom 90 to 150 mg/dL (5.0 to 8.3 mmol/L) for children, 13 to 19 years oldFrom 100 to 180 mg/dL (5.5 to 10.0 mmol/L) for children, 6 to 12 years oldFrom 110 to 200 mg/dL (6.1 to 11.1 mmol/L) for children under 6 years old

For people with type 2 diabetes, the American Diabetes Association also recommends that blood sugar targets be individualized. Talk to your doctor and diabetes educator about your goals. In general, before meals, your blood sugar should be:

From 70 to 130 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.2 mmol/L) for adults

After meals (1 to 2 hours after eating), your blood sugar should be:

Less than 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) for adults

High blood sugar can harm you. If your blood sugar is high, you need to know how to bring it down. Here are some questions to ask yourself if your blood sugar is high.

Are you eating too much or too little? Have you been following your diabetes meal plan?Are you taking your diabetes medicines correctly?Has your provider (or insurance company) changed your medicines?Is your insulin expired? Check the date on your insulin.Has your insulin been exposed to very high or very low temperatures?If you take insulin, have you been taking the correct dose? Are you changing your syringes or pen needles?Are you afraid of having low blood sugar? Is that causing you to eat too much or take too little insulin or other diabetes medicine?Have you injected insulin into a firm, numb, bumpy, or overused area? Have you been rotating sites?Have you been less or more active than usual?Do you have a cold, flu, or another illness?Have you had more stress than usual?Have you been checking your blood sugar every day?Have you gained or lost weight?

Call your provider if your blood sugar is too high or too low and you do not understand why. When your blood sugar is in your target range, you will feel better and your health will be better. Hyperglycemia – control; Hypoglycemia – control; Diabetes – blood sugar control; Blood glucose – managing Atkinson MA, Mcgill DE, Dassau E, Laffel L.

1. Type 1 diabetes.
2. In: Melmed S, Auchus RJ, Goldfine AB, Koenig RJ, Rosen CJ, eds.
3. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology,14th ed.
4. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:chap 36.
5. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee; Draznin B, Aroda VR, et al.6.
6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022.

Diabetes Care,2022;45(Suppl 1):S83-S96. PMID: 34964868 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34964868/, Riddle MC, Ahmann AJ. Therapeutics of type 2 diabetes. In: Melmed S, Auchus RJ, Goldfine AB, Koenig RJ, Rosen CJ, eds. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology,14th ed.

What are the screening criteria for the diabetes?

Importance An estimated 13% of all US adults (18 years or older) have diabetes, and 34.5% meet criteria for prediabetes. The prevalences of prediabetes and diabetes are higher in older adults. Estimates of the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes vary widely, perhaps because of differences in the definition of prediabetes or the heterogeneity of prediabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure and new cases of blindness among adults in the US. It is also associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and was estimated to be the seventh leading cause of death in the US in 2017. Screening asymptomatic adults for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes. Objective To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and preventive interventions for those with prediabetes. Population Nonpregnant adults aged 35 to 70 years seen in primary care settings who have overweight or obesity (defined as a body mass index ≥25 and ≥30, respectively) and no symptoms of diabetes. Evidence Assessment The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit. Conclusions and Recommendation The USPSTF recommends screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults aged 35 to 70 years who have overweight or obesity. Clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions. (B recommendation) Summary of Recommendation See the Summary of Recommendation figure. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020 National Diabetes Statistics Report, an estimated 13% of all US adults (18 years or older) have diabetes, and 34.5% meet criteria for prediabetes.1 The prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes are higher in older adults. Of persons with diabetes, 21.4% were not aware of or did not report having diabetes, and only 15.3% of persons with prediabetes reported being told by a health professional that they had this condition.1 Estimates of the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes vary widely, perhaps because of differences in the definition of prediabetes or the heterogeneity of prediabetes.2 A large cohort study of 77 107 persons with prediabetes reported that the risk of developing diabetes increased with increasing hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) level and with increasing body mass index (BMI).3 Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure and new cases of blindness among adults in the US. It is also associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis 4 – 6 and was estimated to be the seventh leading cause of death in the US in 2017.1 Screening asymptomatic adults for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes. USPSTF Assessment of Magnitude of Net Benefit The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit ( Table ). See the Table for more information on the USPSTF recommendation rationale and assessment and the eFigure in the Supplement for information on the recommendation grade. See the Figure for a summary of the recommendation for clinicians. For more details on the methods the USPSTF uses to determine the net benefit, see the USPSTF Procedure Manual.7 Patient Population Under Consideration This recommendation applies to nonpregnant adults aged 35 to 70 years seen in primary care settings who have overweight or obesity (defined as a BMI ≥25 and ≥30, respectively) and no symptoms of diabetes. Overweight and obesity are the strongest risk factors for developing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults.8 Other risk factors include older age, family history, history of gestational diabetes, history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and dietary and lifestyle factors.8, 9 The prevalence of diabetes is higher among American Indian/Alaska Native (14.7%), Asian (9.2%), Hispanic/Latino (12.5%), and non-Hispanic Black (11.7%) persons than among non-Hispanic White (7.5%) persons.1 Disparities in diabetes prevalence are the result of a variety of factors. A large body of evidence demonstrates strong associations between prevalence of diabetes and social factors such as socioeconomic status, food environment, and physical environment.10 The higher prevalence of diabetes in Asian persons may be related to differences in body composition. A difference in body fat composition in Asian persons results in underestimation of risk based on BMI thresholds used to define overweight in the US.11 Clinicians should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons.11, 12 Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.13 Prediabetes and type 2 diabetes can be detected by measuring fasting plasma glucose or HbA 1c level, or with an oral glucose tolerance test. A fasting plasma glucose level of 126 mg/dL (6.99 mmol/L) or greater, an HbA 1c level of 6.5% or greater, or a 2-hour postload glucose level of 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) or greater are consistent with the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. A fasting plasma glucose level of 100 to 125 mg/dL (5.55-6.94 mmol/L), an HbA 1c level of 5.7% to 6.4%, or a 2-hour postload glucose level of 140 to 199 mg/dL (7.77-11.04 mmol/L) are consistent with prediabetes.14 HbA 1c is a measure of long-term blood glucose concentration and is not affected by acute changes in glucose levels caused by stress or illness. Because HbA 1c measurements do not require fasting, they are more convenient than using a fasting plasma glucose level or an oral glucose tolerance test. Both fasting plasma glucose and HbA 1c levels are simpler to measure than performing an oral glucose tolerance test. The oral glucose tolerance test is done in the morning in a fasting state; blood glucose concentration is measured 2 hours after ingestion of a 75-g oral glucose load. The diagnosis of type 2 diabetes should be confirmed with repeat testing.14 Evidence on the optimal screening interval for adults with an initial normal glucose test result is limited. Cohort and modeling studies suggest that screening every 3 years may be a reasonable approach for adults with normal blood glucose levels.15 – 17 Both lifestyle interventions that focus on diet, physical activity, or both and metformin have demonstrated efficacy in preventing or delaying progression to diabetes in persons with prediabetes.2 However, metformin has not been approved for this specific indication by the US Food and Drug Administration. Clinicians and patients may want to consider several other factors as they discuss preventive interventions for prediabetes. In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study (which serves as a model for many lifestyle intervention programs in the US), lifestyle intervention was more effective than metformin in preventing or delaying diabetes. In addition to preventing progression to diabetes, lifestyle interventions have a beneficial effect on weight, blood pressure, and lipid levels (increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and lowering triglyceride levels). Metformin has a beneficial effect on weight, but it does not appear to affect blood pressure, or to consistently improve lipid levels.2 In post hoc analyses of the DPP, lifestyle intervention was effective in all subgroups, while similar analyses of the DPP and the DPP Outcomes Study (DPPOS) suggest that metformin was effective in persons younger than 60 years, in persons with a BMI of 35 or greater, in persons with a fasting plasma glucose level of 110 mg/dL (6.11 mmol/L) or greater, or in persons with a history of gestational diabetes.18, 19 Additional Tools and Resources The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has several resources related to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes available at https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/index.html and https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevent-type-2/index.html, as well as information on the National Diabetes Prevention Program at https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/index.html, The National Institutes of Health has several resources related to screening, diagnosis, prevention, and management of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes available at https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/professionals/clinical-tools-patient-management/diabetes, The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends diet and physical activity promotion programs to prevent type 2 diabetes among persons at increased risk ( https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/diabetes-combined-diet-and-physical-activity-promotion-programs-prevent-type-2-diabetes ). Other Related USPSTF Recommendations The USPSTF recommends offering or referring adults with a BMI of 30 or greater to intensive, multicomponent behavioral interventions.20 Update of Previous USPSTF Recommendation This recommendation replaces the 2015 USPSTF recommendation statement on screening for abnormal blood glucose levels and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic adults. In 2015, the USPSTF recommended screening for abnormal blood glucose levels as part of cardiovascular risk assessment in adults aged 40 to 70 years who have overweight or obesity. The USPSTF also recommended that clinicians should offer or refer patients with abnormal blood glucose levels to intensive behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthful diet and physical activity.21 For the current recommendation statement, the USPSTF recommends screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults aged 35 to 70 years who have overweight or obesity, and that clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions. Based on data suggesting that the incidence of diabetes increases at age 35 years compared with younger ages 22 and on the evidence for the benefits of interventions for newly diagnosed diabetes (discussed below), the USPSTF has decreased the age at which to begin screening to 35 years. To update its 2015 recommendation statement, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review 2, 23 of the evidence on screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and preventive interventions for those with prediabetes. This review focused on direct evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and the benefits and harms of interventions (such as behavioral counseling focused on diet, physical activity, or both, or pharmacotherapy for glycemic, blood pressure, or lipid control, compared with no treatment or usual care) for screen-detected prediabetes and type 2 diabetes or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. The review also looked at the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for prediabetes to delay or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes. Benefits of Early Detection and Treatment The USPSTF found 2 randomized clinical trials, the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION)–Cambridge (n = 20 184 participants) 24 – 26 and the Ely study (n = 4936 participants), 27 – 29 that evaluated the effect of screening for diabetes on health outcomes. ADDITION-Cambridge was a cluster randomized trial that randomly assigned practices to no screening, screening followed by intensive treatment of screen-detected diabetes (HbA 1c target <7.0%, blood pressure target ≤135/85 mm Hg, and cholesterol targets, and low-dose aspirin use unless contraindicated), or screening followed by routine care of screen-detected diabetes. In the Ely study, the treatment of persons with screen-detected diabetes was managed by primary care clinicians as they deemed appropriate. Neither trial found a reduction in all-cause or type-specific mortality with screening compared with no screening over approximately 10 years of follow-up, which notably may have been too short to detect an effect on health outcomes. Neither trial found statistically significant differences in cardiovascular events, quality of life, nephropathy, or neuropathy between screening and control groups, but data collection for these outcomes was limited to a minority of trial participants. Effect of Interventions for Screen-Detected Type 2 Diabetes or Prediabetes on Health Outcomes One randomized clinical trial (ADDITION-Europe) 30 - 33 evaluated interventions for persons with screen-detected type 2 diabetes. It found no difference over 5 to 10 years of follow-up between an intensive multifactorial intervention aimed at controlling glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels and routine care in the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, occurrence of a first cardiovascular event, chronic kidney disease, visual impairment, or neuropathy. Follow-up may have been too short in this trial to detect an effect on the health outcomes of interest. Thirty-eight trials that assessed behavioral or pharmacologic interventions for prediabetes reported on health outcomes.2, 23 Overall, trials found no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality or CVD events, and no difference or only small improvements in quality of life scores that are not likely clinically significant. Follow-up duration in most of these trials may have been too short to detect an effect on health outcomes. One trial, the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study comparing a 6-year lifestyle intervention (diet, exercise, or both) with control, found lower all-cause mortality and CVD-related mortality in the combined intervention groups vs control group at 23 and 30 years of follow-up, though not at 20 years of follow-up (all-cause mortality: 28.1% vs 38.4%; hazard ratio, 0.71 at 23 years and 45.7% vs 56.3%; HR, 0.74 at 30 years; CVD-related mortality: 11.9% vs 19.6%; HR, 0.59 at 23 years and 29.6% vs 22.0%; HR, 0.67 at 30 years).34, 35 However, this trial was limited by baseline differences between intervention and control groups that were likely to bias results in favor of the intervention. Effect of Interventions for Newly or Recently Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes on Health Outcomes The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and 2 other studies reported the effect of interventions for newly diagnosed diabetes on health outcomes. The UKPDS found that all-cause mortality, diabetes-related mortality, and myocardial infarction were improved with intensive glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin over 20 years (10-year posttrial assessment) but not at shorter follow-up. Intensive glucose control was associated with a decreased risk for all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.87 ), diabetes-related mortality (RR, 0.83 ), and myocardial infarction (RR, 0.85 ) over 20 years.36, 37 For persons who had overweight, intensive glucose control with metformin decreased all-cause mortality (RR, 0.64 ), diabetes-related mortality (RR, 0.58 ), and myocardial infarction (RR, 0.61 ) at the 10-year follow-up, and benefits were maintained during the subsequent 10 years of posttrial follow-up.37, 38 The other 2 studies found no statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups in all-cause mortality and risk of myocardial infarction; however, these studies were limited by short duration of follow-up, small study size, or both. The Diabetes Education and Self Management for Ongoing and Newly Diagnosed (DESMOND) trial 39, 40 found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between persons randomly assigned to group education and those randomly assigned to the control group over 1 and 3 years of follow-up. Another trial (n = 150) 41 found no statistically significant difference in myocardial infarction over 7 years of follow-up. Effect of Interventions for Prediabetes on Progression to Diabetes Twenty-three trials compared lifestyle interventions with a control group for delaying or preventing the onset of type 2 diabetes.2, 23 In most trials (18 trials), the lifestyle interventions focused on both diet/nutrition and physical activity, and most (18 trials) delivered high-contact lifestyle interventions, defined as intervention contact time of more than 360 minutes. Most of the trials focused on persons with impaired glucose tolerance. Meta-analysis of the 23 trials found that lifestyle interventions were associated with a reduction in progression to diabetes (pooled RR, 0.78 ; n = 12 915 participants). In post hoc analyses, the DPP reported that lifestyle intervention was effective in all subgroups and treatment effects did not differ by age, sex, race and ethnicity, or BMI after 3 years of follow-up.18 Several trials also reported the effects of lifestyle interventions on intermediate outcomes. In pooled analyses, lifestyle interventions were associated with a reduction in weight (pooled weighted mean difference, −1.2 kg ) and BMI (pooled WMD, −0.54 ). In addition, lifestyle interventions were associated with a reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (pooled WMD, −1.7 mm Hg and pooled WMD, −1.2 mm Hg, respectively), and high-contact lifestyle interventions were associated with reduced triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.2, 23 Fifteen trials evaluated pharmacologic interventions to delay or prevent diabetes.2, 23 For metformin, meta-analysis of 3 trials found that it was associated with a reduction in the incidence of diabetes (pooled RR, 0.73 ).2, 23 In post hoc analyses, the DPP reported that the effect associated with use of metformin compared with placebo was not statistically significantly different after 3 years of follow-up for subgroups defined by age, sex, or race and ethnicity. The analysis reported a statistically significant effect modification by BMI, with greater effect on diabetes incidence for persons with a higher BMI (eg, reduction in diabetes incidence, 53% for BMI ≥35 vs 3% for BMI of 22 to <30).18 For both thiazolidinediones and α-glucosidase inhibitors, meta-analysis of 3 trials each found associations with a reduction in the incidence of diabetes, but the results were limited by imprecision and inconsistency across trials.2, 23 Other pharmacologic interventions seeking to delay or prevent diabetes have been studied, but only in 1 study each.2 Two trials reported the effects of metformin on intermediate outcomes. The DPP (n = 2155) reported greater decreases in weight for persons receiving metformin compared with those receiving placebo (−2.0 kg ).18 The Promotora Effectiveness Versus Metformin Trial (PREVENT-DM) of metformin also found that participants in the intervention group had greater decreases in weight and BMI, but the differences were not statistically significant.42 Both trials reported no significant difference in blood pressure among persons receiving metformin compared with placebo.42, 43 The DPP reported a greater increase in high-density lipoprotein levels for persons receiving metformin compared with those receiving placebo after 3 years (difference between groups, 0.40 ) but no difference between groups for other lipid levels, 43 whereas the PREVENT-DM study (n = 92) found no statistically significant difference in lipid levels between metformin and control groups at 1 year.42 Harms of Screening and Treatment Some of the trials reporting on the benefits of screening and interventions for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes also reported harms. Overall, the ADDITION-Cambridge and Ely trials, and a pilot study of ADDITION-Cambridge, 28, 29, 44 - 46 did not find clinically significant differences between screening and control groups in measures of anxiety, depression, worry, or self-reported health. However, the results suggest possible short-term increases in anxiety (at 6 weeks) among persons screened and diagnosed with diabetes compared with those screened and not diagnosed with diabetes. Harms of interventions for screen-detected or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes were sparsely reported and, when reported, were rare and not significantly different between intervention and control groups across trials.2, 23 The UKPDS trial reported 1 patient of 911 in the intervention group receiving insulin who died from hypoglycemia, and serious hypoglycemic events requiring medical attention in 6 of 619 participants (1%) receiving chlorpropamide, 9 of 615 (1.5%) receiving glibenclamide, 16 of 911 (1.8%) receiving insulin, and 6 of 896 (0.7%) in the conventional care group.36 Several trials reported on harms associated with interventions for prediabetes. Four studies of pharmacotherapy interventions reported on any hypoglycemia and found no difference between interventions and placebo over 8 weeks to 5 years. Three trials found higher rates of gastrointestinal adverse events associated with metformin. Although not reported in studies, lactic acidosis is a rare but potentially serious adverse effect of metformin, primarily in persons with significant renal impairment.47 In studies of lifestyle interventions that reported on musculoskeletal events, 1 study found no significant difference between groups for rates of joint sprains/strains or muscle or joint aches over 1 year, 1 study found few cases of musculoskeletal problems ( P  < .017).2, 23 Response to Public Comment A draft version of this recommendation statement was posted for public comment on the USPSTF website from March 16 to April 12, 2021. Many comments agreed with the USPSTF recommendation. In response to public comment, the USPSTF clarified that disparities in the prevalence of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are due to social factors and not biological ones, and incorporated person-first language when referring to persons who have overweight or obesity. Some comments requested broadening the eligibility criteria for screening to all adults, or to persons with any risk factor for diabetes, and not confined to persons who have overweight or obesity. The USPSTF appreciates these perspectives; however, the available evidence best supports screening starting at age 35 years. The USPSTF also added language clarifying that overweight and obesity are the strongest risk factors for developing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. In response to comments, the USPSTF also noted that metformin appears to be effective in reducing the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes in persons with a history of gestational diabetes, based on post hoc analyses of the DPP and DPPOS. More research is needed to evaluate the following.

More studies are needed on the effects of screening on health outcomes that enroll populations reflective of the prevalence of diabetes in the US, particularly racial and ethnic groups that have a higher prevalence of diabetes than White persons. More US data are needed on the effects of lifestyle interventions and medical treatments for screen-detected prediabetes and diabetes on health outcomes over a longer follow-up period, particularly in populations reflective of the prevalence of diabetes. More research is needed on how best to increase uptake of lifestyle interventions, especially among populations at highest risk for progression to diabetes and adverse health outcomes. Clinical trials and additional modeling studies are needed to better elucidate the optimal frequency of screening and the age at which to start and stop screening. More research is needed on the natural history of prediabetes, including the identification of factors associated with risk of progression to diabetes or reversion to normoglycemia.

Recommendations of Others The American Diabetes Association 48 recommends universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes, using a fasting plasma glucose level, 2-hour plasma glucose level during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, or HbA 1c level, for all adults 45 years or older, regardless of risk factors, and screening adults who have overweight or obesity (BMI ≥25 or ≥23 in Asian American persons) with 1 or more risk factors, regardless of age.

If the results are normal, it recommends repeat screening at a minimum of 3-year intervals. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology 49 recommends universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes for all adults 45 years or older, regardless of risk factors, and screening persons with risk factors for diabetes (regardless of age).

Testing for prediabetes and diabetes can be done using a fasting plasma glucose level, 2-hour plasma glucose level during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, or HbA 1c level. It recommends repeat screening every 3 years. Corresponding Author: Karina W.

Davidson, PhD, MASc, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, 130 E 59th St, Ste 14C, New York, NY 10032( [email protected] ) Accepted for Publication: July 20, 2021. Correction: This article was corrected on October 26, 2021, to fix an unclear diagnostic testing standard in the Practice Considerations section.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: Karina W. Davidson, PhD, MASc; Michael J. Barry, MD; Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH; Michael Cabana, MD, MA, MPH; Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD; Esa M. Davis, MD, MPH; Katrina E. Donahue, MD, MPH; Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH; Alex H.

• Rist, MD, MPH; Martha Kubik, PhD, RN; Li Li, MD, PhD, MPH; Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH; Douglas K.
• Owens, MD, MS; Lori Pbert, PhD; Michael Silverstein, MD, MPH; James Stevermer, MD, MSPH; Chien-Wen Tseng, MD, MPH, MSEE; John B. Wong, MD.
• Affiliations of The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York (Davidson); Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Barry); University of California, Los Angeles (Mangione); Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York (Cabana); Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (Caughey); University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Davis); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Donahue); Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Doubeni); Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia (Krist); Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (Krist); George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia (Kubik); University of Virginia, Charlottesville (Li); New York University, New York, New York (Ogedegbe); Stanford University, Stanford, California (Owens); University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (Pbert); Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts (Silverstein); University of Missouri, Columbia (Stevermer); University of Hawaii, Honolulu (Tseng); Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii (Tseng); Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts (Wong).

Author Contributions: Dr Davidson had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The USPSTF members contributed equally to the recommendation statement. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Authors followed the policy regarding conflicts of interest described at https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/conflict-of-interest-disclosures,

All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. Funding/Support: The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The US Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) support the operations of the USPSTF. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: AHRQ staff assisted in the following: development and review of the research plan, commission of the systematic evidence review from an Evidence-based Practice Center, coordination of expert review and public comment of the draft evidence report and draft recommendation statement, and the writing and preparation of the final recommendation statement and its submission for publication.

AHRQ staff had no role in the approval of the final recommendation statement or the decision to submit for publication. Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the US government. They should not be construed as an official position of AHRQ or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

• Additional Contributions: We thank Howard Tracer, MD (AHRQ), who contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and Lisa Nicolella, MA (AHRQ), who assisted with coordination and editing.
• Additional Information: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about the effectiveness of specific preventive care services for patients without obvious related signs or symptoms.

It bases its recommendations on the evidence of both the benefits and harms of the service and an assessment of the balance. The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment. The USPSTF recognizes that clinical decisions involve more considerations than evidence alone.

Clinicians should understand the evidence but individualize decision-making to the specific patient or situation. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms.2. Jonas D, Crotty K, Yun JD, et al. Screening for Abnormal Blood Glucose and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Evidence Review for the U.S.

Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No.207, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. AHRQ publication 21-05276-EF-1.3. Glauber H, Vollmer WM, Nichols GA. A simple model for predicting two-year risk of diabetes development in individuals with prediabetes.

1.  Perm J,2018;22:17-050.
2. PubMed Google Scholar 5.
3. Portillo-Sanchez P, Bril F, Maximos M, et al.
4. High prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and normal plasma aminotransferase levels.
5.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab,2015;100(6):2231-2238.
6. Doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-1966 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 9.

Rubin KH, Glintborg D, Nybo M, Abrahamsen B, Andersen M. Development and risk factors of type 2 diabetes in a nationwide population of women with polycystic ovary syndrome.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab,2017;102(10):3848-3857. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01354 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 12.

• Lee JW, Brancati FL, Yeh HC.
• Trends in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Asians versus Whites: results from the United States National Health Interview Survey, 1997-2008.
•  Diabetes Care,2011;34(2):353-357.
• Doi: 10.2337/dc10-0746 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 17.
• Herman WH, Ye W, Griffin SJ, et al.

Early detection and treatment of type 2 diabetes reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality: a simulation of the results of the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People With Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION-Europe).

•  Diabetes Care,2015;38(8):1449-1455.
• Doi: 10.2337/dc14-2459 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 18.
• Nowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, et al; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group.
• Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin.
•  N Engl J Med,2002;346(6):393-403.

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012512 PubMed Google Scholar 19. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Long-term effects of metformin on diabetes prevention: identification of subgroups that benefited most in the Diabetes Prevention Program and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.

 Diabetes Care,2019;42(4):601-608. doi: 10.2337/dc18-1970 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 20. Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral weight loss interventions to prevent obesity-related morbidity and mortality in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

 JAMA,2018;320(11):1163-1171. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13022 PubMed Google Scholar 21. Siu AL; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for abnormal blood glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

•  Ann Intern Med,2015;163(11):861-868.
• Doi: 10.7326/M15-2345 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 23.
• Jonas DE, Crotty K, Yun JD, et al.
• Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.  JAMA,
• Published August 24, 2021.

doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.10403 Google Scholar 24. Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Simmons RK, Williams KM, et al. 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. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-136 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 26. Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Simmons RK, Prevost AT, et al. Long-term effect of population screening for diabetes on cardiovascular morbidity, self-rated health, and health behavior.  Ann Fam Med,2015;13(2):149-157.

doi: 10.1370/afm.1737 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 28. Rahman M, Simmons RK, Hennings SH, Wareham NJ, Griffin SJ. How much does screening bring forward the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and reduce complications? twelve year follow-up of the Ely cohort.

 Diabetologia,2012;55(6):1651-1659. doi: 10.1007/s00125-011-2441-9 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 29. Rahman M, Simmons RK, Hennings SH, Wareham NJ, Griffin SJ. Effect of screening for type 2 diabetes on population-level self-rated health outcomes and measures of cardiovascular risk: 13-year follow-up of the Ely cohort.

 Diabet Med,2012;29(7):886-892. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03570.x PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 30. Griffin SJ, Borch-Johnsen K, Davies MJ, et al. Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening (ADDITION-Europe): a cluster-randomised trial.

•  Lancet,2011;378(9786):156-167.
• Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60698-3 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 31.
• Simmons RK, Sharp SJ, Sandbæk A, et al.
• Does early intensive multifactorial treatment reduce total cardiovascular burden in individuals with screen-detected diabetes? findings from the ADDITION-Europe cluster-randomized trial.

 Diabet Med,2012;29(11):e409-e416. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03759.x PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 32. Simmons RK, Borch-Johnsen K, Lauritzen T, et al. A randomised trial of the effect and cost-effectiveness of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes: the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People With Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION-Europe) study.

1.  Health Technol Assess,2016;20(64):1-86.
2. Doi: 10.3310/hta20640 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 33.
3. Griffin SJ, Rutten GEHM, Khunti K, et al.
4. Long-term effects of intensive multifactorial therapy in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes in primary care: 10-year follow-up of the ADDITION-Europe cluster-randomised trial.

 Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol,2019;7(12):925-937. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30349-3 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 34. Li G, Zhang P, Wang J, et al. Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and diabetes incidence after lifestyle intervention for people with impaired glucose tolerance in the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study: a 23-year follow-up study.

1.  Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol,2014;2(6):474-480.
2. Doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70057-9 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 35.
3. Gong Q, Zhang P, Wang J, et al; Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study Group.
4. Morbidity and mortality after lifestyle intervention for people with impaired glucose tolerance: 30-year results of the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Outcome Study.

 Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol,2019;7(6):452-461. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30093-2 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 36. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33).

 Lancet,1998;352(9131):837-853. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 39. Davies MJ, Heller S, Skinner TC, et al; Diabetes Education and Self Management for Ongoing and Newly Diagnosed Collaborative. Effectiveness of the Diabetes Education and Self Management for Ongoing and Newly Diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial.

 BMJ,2008;336(7642):491-495. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39474.922025.BE PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 40. Khunti K, Gray LJ, Skinner T, et al. Effectiveness of a diabetes education and self management programme (DESMOND) for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: three year follow-up of a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.

 BMJ,2012;344:e2333. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2333 PubMed Google Scholar 41. Yang Y, Yao JJ, Du JL, et al. Primary prevention of macroangiopathy in patients with short-duration type 2 diabetes by intensified multifactorial intervention: seven-year follow-up of diabetes complications in Chinese.  Diabetes Care,2013;36(4):978-984.

doi: 10.2337/dc12-0227 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 43. Ratner R, Goldberg R, Haffner S, et al; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Impact of intensive lifestyle and metformin therapy on cardiovascular disease risk factors in the Diabetes Prevention Program.

1.  Diabetes Care,2005;28(4):888-894.
2. Doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.4.888 PubMed Google Scholar 44.
3. Park P, Simmons RK, Prevost AT, Griffin SJ.
4. Screening for type 2 diabetes is feasible, acceptable, but associated with increased short-term anxiety: a randomised controlled trial in British general practice.

 BMC Public Health,2008;8:350. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-350 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 45. 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(7618):486. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39303.723449.55 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 46. Paddison CA, Eborall HC, French DP, et al. Predictors of anxiety and depression among people attending diabetes screening: a prospective cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomized control trial.

 Br J Health Psychol,2011;16(pt 1):213-226. doi: 10.1348/135910710X495366 PubMed Google Scholar 49. Handelsman Y, Bloomgarden ZT, Grunberger G, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan—2015.