Kelly Close of CloseConcerns just reported on a recent CDC report
"In the November 16th issue of the "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report", the CDC reported that between 1995 and 2010, the age-adjusted prevalence of self-reported diagnosed diabetes increased in every state, by a median of 82%. While in 1995, only three states had diabetes prevalance over six%, by 2010, diabetes prevalence exceeded 6% in every sate and diabetes prevalence was over 10% in six states. Strikingly, the prevalence rose by at least 100% in 18 states and by at least 50% in 42 states. The five states with the greatest increases were: 1) Oklahoma (227%), 2) Kentucky (158%), 3) Georgia (145%), 4) Alabama (140%), and 5) Washington (135%). Regionally, in line with past studies, the CDC found that the South had the greatest increase in prevalence, followed by the West, Midwest, and Northeast. For more - and to see how your state fared - see the CDC's report here."
I read the report and am bit concerned about such quotes in numbers. The ADA and WHO changed the diagnostic criteria (in 1997 and 1998 respectively) by reducing the threshold for fasting blood sugar from 140 mg/dl to 126 mg/dl. Given this change and the timing, it seems misleading to quote apples and oranges comparing 1995 to 2010. The report even indicates that part of this increase in incidence is likely a result of changed criteria. And these are age adjusted rates, since diabetics are living longer, older populations will have higher rates. I'm not saying it isn't serious, but this data doesn't really say anything about how big the increase is in actual new cases of diabetes.
While I am alarmed about such reports, I'm also not sure about how much this is real. What do you think?