did the numbers to diagnose diabetes change? Wondering how many years ago and googled it and cant find anything. Thanks Karen
"The wonderful things about standards is that there are so many to choose from". I bet you can find ADA's "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" documents going back at least a couple years on the web. The AACE has a similar set of standards (with slightly different numbers.)
When I was diagnosed, it was without a blood test. The definition of diabetes, for thousands of years, was "sugar in urine". It's only in the past 30 years that blood tests counted too (or today, instead). When I was a kid... turning testape jet black counted for sure back then!
I have always wondered about this with regard to type 2 diabetes. You hear so much about the "diabetes epidemic" (largely attributable to an increase in type 2 diagnoses), but I know that some people who are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes now would not have received such a diagnosis 20 or 30 years ago. Does anyone know how much of the reported increase in type 2 diabetes is simply due to a change in the standards for diagnosis of type 2?
Just read an article saying 2002 went from 130 to 100 fasting. Sure added a lot of people Im sure!!
Thanks for the replies and article!!
this was what I was given.
I found the (United States) numbers for 2002:
American Diabetes Association, non-diabetic fasting blood sugar 90 - 130 mg/dL
American College of Endocrinology, non-diabetic fasting blood sugar <110 mg/dL American Diabetes Association, non-diabetic 2 hours after a meal blood sugar <180 mg/dL American College of Endocrinology, non-diabetic 2 hours after a meal blood sugar <140 mg/dL American Diabetes Association, A1c < 7.0% American College of Endocrinology A1c < 6.5% Today it is widely accepted that the non-diabetic fasting blood sugar reading should be <100 mg/dL Today it is widely accepted that the non-diabetic 2 hours after a meal reading should be <140 mg/dL Even though the recommended numbers for the A1c haven't changed since 2002, (see above), I know that many physicians would like to see the number to be less than 6.0%.
I think. I didnt read the article this was what I was given. There is this: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046782.php
I havent read the whole thing but I have heard at different places that the diagnostic criteria lowered some years back. Im still in search for the info. If you know something or somewhere I need to look Shawnmarie I would certainly appreciate it!!
130 to 100 fasting would sure cause an "Epidemic" all by itself.
I have just read the article and I am appalled with the way the US health system is dictated to by big pharma. Not to get political but the new health rules would have squashed this archaic thinking years ago and saved many people’s lives. For those who haven’t read the article it boils down to setting the ‘bar’ for diagnoses high enough that people are too far gone to be saved so they don’t get tarnished with the ‘d’ diagnoses and lose their job or health insurance. The bar has now been lowered as they have expensive drugs to treat people with so are happy to call us diabetic. The GTT here is also a joke. I used to administer it in the UK. It wasn’t expensive to do, used drawn blood ( not a finger stick and meter) and used a sophisticated machine. This was in the 70’s. My GTT was done in the endo’s office, the girls didn’t make sure my hands were clean and I had to stay still for 2 hours. I was diagnosed on the fact that my bg rose to 200. I am still unsure about my diagnoses as my FBS is always in the 80’s my A1c 5.5 and I take no medication as I refuse to do so until I am sure it is necessary. Having read the article now I am even more skeptical. I think I’m keeping my endo in business as he insists on seeing me every 6 weeks.
I'm always a bit bemused when I see phrases like "my endo insists on seeing me every 6 weeks." Since you aren't on any meds and have excellent numbers, what in the world would be the purpose for that? I believe that we, as consumers of services have the right to make decisions about our own health care. If I couldn't get a meaningful explanation for why a doctor wanted to see me every 6 weeks under your situation and if it didn't make sense I'd say I would like to change that to 6 months (or whatever you feel comfortable with). If he said, " I won't see you under those circumstances" I'd say, Adios! and find another doctor. In your situation I wouldn't bother with an endo, but would just see PCP.
Actually in my situation (Type 1, on insulin) I just see a PCP, but I know not everyone would be comfortable with that.
You or others can get angry all you want about where the diagnosis line is today or was a couple years ago, blame it all on the ADA or JDRF or AACE or whatever acronym you please, but for thousands of years the definition of diabetes was "sugar in urine" and nothing else. In the past couple decades we've seen a real revolution in how we define and measure it, all for the better.
At least now people have a chance to help theirselves before getting complications. I feel fortunate I was diagnosed at a relatively low fb. That said Im wondering, like MyBustedPancreas & BadMoon, if thats where the epidemic came from. We were always there just not diagnosed, and then we were. And now there are zillions of us.
hi Zoe,
I understand why you are bemused. I had Hashimoto’s and had a partial thyroidectomy and I have peripheral neuropathy. I am not sure whether the neuropathy is due to sugar so I stick with him and my neurologist( who keeps telling me that the extensive damage is due to my diabetes) so I’m still trying to getto the bottom of all my symptoms. I have had numerous GTT’s in the past due to the neuropathy and this was the first that was declared ‘positive’. I guess I’m in denial but I would be interested to know if myelin sheath damage and peripheral neuropathy have been found BEFORE the development of full blown type 2 and results like mine. I have been tested for Lyme, Aids B 12 deficiency etc. all negative. Thanks for posting. My PCP says he considers me ’ non diabetic but with impaired GT’ or insulin resistant that’s why I was so interested in the article.