Headlines and stories across the US are blaring the apparently frightening news:
The Los Angeles Times: Diabetes nation? Half of Americans have diabetes or pre-diabetes
WebMD skips the pre-diabetes discussion and jumps right in with: Diabetes a Concern for Half of Americans
NBC News: Half of Americans Have Diabetes or High Blood Sugar
This is all based on a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this week.
I couldn’t find a single story that questioned those numbers or the definition – the expanding definition of diabetes and its newer-named little sister, pre-diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association offers this chart to show the definition of diabetes and of pre diabetes, based on hemoglobin A1c, a measure of blood glucose over 2-3 months’ time. The ADA – and others – now accept this as gospel:
Diabetes is diagnosed at an A1C of greater than or equal to 6.5%
| Result | A1C |
| Normal | less than 5.7% |
| Prediabetes | 5.7% to 6.4% |
| Diabetes | 6.5% or higher |
Not everyone accepts the claim that half of all Americans have either diabetes or pre-diabetes, primarily because not everyone accepts the rigid boundaries and the lower boundaries that now start labeling you as pre-diabetic if your hemoglobin A1C test comes back at 5.7% or higher.
Dr. Victor Montori is a diabetes specialist at the Mayo Clinic. He’s an endocrinologist and a researcher who actively promotes shared decision-making between doctors and patients. I talked with him by phone today about the new study, the news coverage, and the definition of pre-diabetes.
Click on the arrow, below, to hear a portion of that interview.
So do we know that half of Americans have diabetes or pre-diabetes?
Only if you accept the lower threshold for what we define as these conditions.
But I haven’t seen a single news story that raised the kinds of questions that Dr. Montori raises. Not even the editorial addressing the study in JAMA addressed these concerns.
Tomorrow, I’ll have more on this topic, as I introduce a new podcast with Dr. John S. Yudkin of London, with whom Montori has co-authored such pieces as:
Please come back to hear that interview tomorrow.
Addendum: John Fauber and colleagues of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today reported on similar issues back in December of 2014. With permission, I’m re-posting a key chart from that story, below.
Courtesy: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel & MedPage Today
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Why we should still miss healthnewsreview. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Flem
September 10, 2015 at 2:55 pmFrankly this is confusing. I would prefer they differentiate between A1C levels when it contributes to actual disease vs as a risk factor. Much the same way we think of treating CV disease by managing cholesterol after you’ve had a prove event (MI or stroke). You should not be labeled as having the “disease” Diabetes until you’ve shown pathology (eye,kidney,nerve damage) regardless of your A1C.
Would you rather have an A1C of 6.5 and no signs of pathology vs 5.2 with nephropathy and retinopathy? Who would you treat? Who needs management of their blood sugars more?”
Harley
September 10, 2015 at 11:58 pmThis kind of stuff dilutes perceptions of how serious diabetes is and results, as Dr Montori points out, in scarce resources being wasted and misdirected.
I’ll look forward to hearing the podcast.
Gary Schwitzer
September 11, 2015 at 12:17 pmHarley,
Thanks for the note. The Yudkin podcast is now available: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2015/09/idolatry-of-the-surrogate-overdiagnosis-in-diabetes-podcast-with-dr-john-s-yudkin/
Beverly
September 14, 2015 at 10:47 amIt would be interesting to know the relationships between the “experts” promulgating the increasingly inclusive definitions of diabetes and prediabetes and the more aggressive treatment thereof and the manufacturers of the anti-diabetes drugs.
John Anthony
September 14, 2015 at 6:33 pmre Beverly. Yes indeed, This all smells like the cholesterol and statin story, all driven by big Pharma, with lower and lower levels of cholesterol being considered to be safe.
Laurence Alter
September 17, 2015 at 5:31 amIf all the world were to follow a standard diabetes diet and the DASH diet – regardless of personal health status – you’d see a dramatic lowering of disease. The second truth: people are FAR more complacent about their health than worried (Dr. Oz says that men are “notoriously negligent” about check-ups; so are my female friends: they wouldn’t know a thyroid gland if it bit them in the nose). If over-diagnosis wakes people up, FINE. A few of the comments below assume drugs and Big Pharma are part of a treatment program. Nothing suggests this from the two audio recordings linked to the above article. If you doubt the complacency of the general public or general practitioners in medicine, see what happens at the dentist’s office: the dentist or hygienist (sp.?) is in your mouth for fully half an hour and in silence. No information is forthcoming. You could be learning ALOT about dental care and prevention in that ‘Wasted Time of Silence.’ This applies to other specialties, too.
Yours,
Laurence
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like