4.7 Article

Estimated number of adults with prediabetes in the US in 2000 - Opportunities for prevention

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 645-649

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.3.645

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To estimate the percent and number of overweight adults in the U.S. with prediabetes who would be potential candidates for diabetes prevention as per the American Diabetes Association Position Statement (12). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We analyzed data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 111; 1988-1994) and projected our estimates to the year 2000. We defined impaired glucose tolerance (IGT; 2-h glucose 140-199 mg/dl), impaired fasting glucose (IFG; fasting glucose 11.0-125 mg/dl), and prediabetes (IGT or IFG) per American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. The ADA recently recommended that all overweight people (BMI greater than or equal to25 kg/m(2)) who are greater than or equal to45 years of age with prediabetes could be potential candidates for diabetes prevention, as could prediabetic people aged >25 years with risk factors. In NHANES 111, 2-h postload glucose concentrations were done only among subjects aged 40-74 years. Because we were interested in overweight people who had both the 2-h glucose and lasting glucose tests, we limited our estimates of IGT, IFG, and prediabetes to those aged 45-74 years. RESULTS - Overall, 17.1% of overweight adults aged 45-74 years had IGT, 11.9% had IFG, 22.6% had prediabetes, and 5.6% had both IGT and IFG. Based on those data, we estimated that in the year 2000, 9.1 million overweight adults aged 45-74 had IGT, 5.8 million had IFG, 11.9 million had prediabetes, and 3.0 million had IGT and IFG. CONCLUSIONS - Almost 12 million overweight individuals aged 45-74 years in the U.S. may benefit from diabetes prevention interventions. The number will be substantially higher if estimation is extended to individuals aged >75 and 25-44 years.

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