William T Cefalu1. 1. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA cefaluwt@pbrc.edu.
Abstract
The category of "prediabetes" defined by the American Diabetes Association comprises a range of intermediate hyperglycemia based on fasting or 2-h postload glucose or on HbA1c Over the recent past, the "cut points" identifying this stage have changed, i.e., a lower fasting glucose level is used. On one hand, it can be argued that the change to a lower cut point identifies a group of individuals still at higher risk and provides heightened awareness for a condition associated with higher risk for cardiovascular disease. In addition, identification of individuals at this stage may represent a chance of earlier intervention in the disease. However, the argument against this definition of prediabetes is that it disguises the differences in the three subcategories and creates problems in interpreting observations on interventions and outcomes. In addition, it can be argued that the enormous numbers of people identified with the criteria far exceeds the capacity of health care systems to respond through individual care, particularly without evidence that interventions benefit any category other than impaired glucose tolerance. Thus, there does not appear to be consensus on the definition using the cut points identified. Controversy also remains as to whether there are glycemic metrics beyond HbA1c that can be used in addition to HbA1c to help assess risk of an individual developing diabetes complications. Given the current controversy, a Point-Counterpoint debate on this issue is provided herein. In the preceding point narrative, Dr. Yudkin provides his argument that there are significant problems with this label. In the counterpoint narrative below, Dr. Cefalu argues that the cut points are appropriate and do provide useful and important information in trying to reduce the future burden of diabetes.-William T. CefaluEditor in Chief, Diabetes Care.
The category of "prediabetes" defined by the American Diabetes Association comprises a range of intermediate hyperglycemia based on fasting or 2-h postload glucose or on HbA1c Over the recent past, the "cut points" identifying this stage have changed, i.e., a lower fasting glucose level is used. On one hand, it can be argued that the change to a lower cut point identifies a group of individuals still at higher risk and provides heightened awareness for a condition associated with higher risk for cardiovascular disease. In addition, identification of individuals at this stage may represent a chance of earlier intervention in the disease. However, the argument against this definition of prediabetes is that it disguises the differences in the three subcategories and creates problems in interpreting observations on interventions and outcomes. In addition, it can be argued that the enormous numbers of people identified with the criteria far exceeds the capacity of health care systems to respond through individual care, particularly without evidence that interventions benefit any category other than impaired glucose tolerance. Thus, there does not appear to be consensus on the definition using the cut points identified. Controversy also remains as to whether there are glycemic metrics beyond HbA1c that can be used in addition to HbA1c to help assess risk of an individual developing diabetes complications. Given the current controversy, a Point-Counterpoint debate on this issue is provided herein. In the preceding point narrative, Dr. Yudkin provides his argument that there are significant problems with this label. In the counterpoint narrative below, Dr. Cefalu argues that the cut points are appropriate and do provide useful and important information in trying to reduce the future burden of diabetes.-William T. CefaluEditor in Chief, Diabetes Care.
Authors: Elizabeth Selvin; Michael W Steffes; Hong Zhu; Kunihiro Matsushita; Lynne Wagenknecht; James Pankow; Josef Coresh; Frederick L Brancati Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rui Li; Shuli Qu; Ping Zhang; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Edward W Gregg; Ann Albright; David Hopkins; Nicolaas P Pronk Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Erin S LeBlanc; Richard E Pratley; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Myrlene A Staten; Patricia R Sheehan; Michael R Lewis; Anne Peters; Sun H Kim; Ranee Chatterjee; Vanita R Aroda; Chhavi Chadha; Lisa M Neff; Irwin G Brodsky; Clifford Rosen; Cyrus V Desouza; John P Foreyt; Daniel S Hsia; Karen C Johnson; Philip Raskin; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Patrick O'Neil; Lawrence S Phillips; Neda Rasouli; Emilia P Liao; David C Robbins; Anastassios G Pittas Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: William T Cefalu; Andrew J M Boulton; William V Tamborlane; Robert G Moses; Derek LeRoith; Eddie L Greene; Frank B Hu; George Bakris; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Julio Rosenstock; Steven E Kahn; Katie Weinger; Lawrence Blonde; Mary de Groot; Stephen Rich; David D'Alessio; Lyn Reynolds; Matthew C Riddle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: William T Cefalu; John B Buse; Jaakko Tuomilehto; G Alexander Fleming; Ele Ferrannini; Hertzel C Gerstein; Peter H Bennett; Ambady Ramachandran; Itamar Raz; Julio Rosenstock; Steven E Kahn Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Aaron Leong; Natalie Daya; Bianca Porneala; James J Devlin; Dov Shiffman; Michael J McPhaul; Elizabeth Selvin; James B Meigs Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 19.112