4.7 Article

Rising incidence of type 2 diabetes in children in the UK

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 1097-1101

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc06-1813

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To estimate the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children < 17 years of age and to investigate the relationship of diabetes with increasing childhood obesity in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Active monthly reporting of cases by consultant pediatricians occurred through the framework of the British Pediatric Surveillance Unit, with additional reports from specialist diabetes nurses. All children <17 years of age and 1 diagnosed by their clinician as having non-type 1 diabetes from 1 October 2004 to 31 October 2005 were included. RESULTS - A total of 168 confirmed cases of non-type 1 diabetes were reported, resulting in a national incidence (excluding the ROI) of 1.3 center dot 100,000(-1) center dot year(-1). Of these, 40% were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes giving a minimum incidence of 0.53 center dot 100,000(-1) center dot year(-1). Children of ethnic minorities were greatly overrepresented, with those of black and South-Asian origin (England data only) having an incidence of 3.9 and 1.25 center dot 100,000(-1) center dot year(-1), respectively, compared with 0.35 - 100,000(-1) year(-1) in those defined as white. Of those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, 95% were overweight and 83% obese according to International Obesity Task Force guidelines. Eighty-four percent had a family history of type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS - Type 2 diabetes is still less common than type 1 diabetes in U.K. children. However, compared with previous prevalence data, the frequency of type 2 diabetes appears to be increasing. Incidence among ethnic minorities is far higher than in whites, as previously described in the U.S. Increased adiposity and family history of type 2 diabetes were strongly associated with the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in U.K. children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据