Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Point-Counterpoint

“Prediabetes”: Are There Problems With This Label? Yes, the Label Creates Further Problems!

  1. John S. Yudkin⇑
  1. Department of Medicine, University College London, London, U.K.
  1. Corresponding author: John S. Yudkin, j.yudkin{at}ucl.ac.uk.
Diabetes Care 2016 Aug; 39(8): 1468-1471. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-2113
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

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 point narrative below, Dr. Yudkin provides his argument that there are significant problems with this label. In the counterpoint narrative that follows Dr. Yudkin’s contribution, 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. Cefalu

Editor in Chief, Diabetes Care

Introduction

As a term to describe people at elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, “prediabetes” has taken on and defeated all-comers in the battle for supremacy. Until the millennium, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) was the only player in the game, but new criteria based on impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (two sets) and then on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (also two sets) arrived on the scene. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) in 2010 deemed that “prediabetes” should encompass the combination of IGT with the wider band of each of the other criteria (1). And it is this term and this classification that dominates the discourse, both scientific and popular.

The results of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) (2,3), based as they are on an intensive program of lifestyle interventions in a highly selected population at very high risk of developing diabetes, have been overinterpreted and used to justify implementing such approaches in the community across populations of millions of people at substantially lower risk. In this Point-Counterpoint series, I will take the “pro” position and will

  • explore what this landmark study has shown and suggest that “diabetes prevention” is conceptually different from prevention of yes/no conditions such as tuberculosis or stroke;

  • argue, as have the DPP trialists, that “the ultimate worth of diabetes prevention is in the reduction of long-term morbidity or mortality, compared with waiting for the disease to develop and then treating it” (3) and that by this criterion evidence is still wanting;

  • show that assuming equivalence between the high-risk DPP subjects and the 86 million U.S. adults with “prediabetes” (4) risks disease-labeling of many lower-risk people for whom no evidence exists;

  • suggest that studies of community-based diabetes prevention programs, generally achieving less than half the impact of the DPP on weight and glycemia, provide little support for implementation, particularly for the entire population with “prediabetes”; and

  • point out that in people with “prediabetes,” recourse to metformin, and by implication to other glucose-lowering agents, is likely to impact deterioration to diabetes only in people at the very highest level of risk.

Given that I am providing the point position in this debate that the label causes problems, I will suggest that for several reasons the term is doing more harm than good. When the landmark DPP (2) and its Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS) (3) are not convincingly able to show benefit after 15 years on even surrogate markers of microvascular disease, there are questions as to whether the potential problems of the “prediabetes” label might outweigh its benefits.

“PREDIABETES”—What Is It?

The term “prediabetes” as defined by the ADA (1) comprises borderline glycemia measured by any of three measures—fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100–125 mg/dL (5.6–6.9 mmol/L), 2-h plasma glucose 140–199 mg/dL (7.8–11.0 mmol/L), or HbA1c 5.7–6.4% (39–46 mmol/mol). Applying the term “prediabetes” to an individual implies that person is at elevated risk for diabetes. Such an individual is also at higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease, although here the different component definitions of the condition do not share similar degrees of risk (5).

In the past it was thought that the cut point for diabetes represented a precise threshold of risk for microvascular complications, but it is clear that no such thresholds exist (6). Glucose intolerance is at the right tail of a distribution curve, so expanding the category by even a small degree will include substantially larger numbers of people. Moreover, because there are three different scales for glycemia with little concordance, the resulting category of “prediabetes” comprises a heterogeneous ragbag of individuals in terms of demography and pathophysiology (7). All three measures tend to deteriorate over time when these people are followed up. But individual studies, or meta-analyses, need rigorous analyses before drawing conclusions that are then applied to everyone with “prediabetes.”

Why Prevent Diabetes?

The main justification for prevention, as for glucose lowering in people with diabetes, is to reduce the risk of future complications. But preventing diabetes is also worthwhile because of its economic burden, individual and societal, and also because the diagnosis comes with additional problems of self-perception and drug side effects. But a new clinical category of “prediabetes” that itself engenders costs (8), treatment side effects, and disutilities related to self-image (9) is justified only if there are longer-term advantages. There needs to be a persuasive case for creating a disease label for over one-third of the U.S. adult population (7).

What Has Been Shown?

The landmark study of diabetes prevention was the DPP (2) and its DPPOS (3,10). The headline results were that the 2.8-year lifestyle intervention in high-risk people resulted by the study end in a 58% relative risk reduction of incident diabetes, a figure that after 15 years still represented a 27% reduction. The intervention was in a highly selected group of overweight people with both IGT and elevated FPG and aimed at a weight reduction of 7% and 150 min of exercise per week. A number of similar diabetes prevention studies have been published, and these are summarized in a meta-analysis in a recent Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) report (11). In 15 studies of lifestyle intervention lasting between 1 and 23 years, there was a 41% reduction in incident diabetes at study end.

There are four points that are worth flagging. First, nearly 80% of subjects in this meta-analysis had IGT at baseline. Only one study has explored the effects of lifestyle interventions on people with IFG, and it has not found a significant benefit (12). Second, the CPSTF meta-analysis concluded that there was no convincing evidence that these programs reduced the incidence of long-term diabetes complications or of mortality. It noted reductions in retinopathy (13) and in cardiovascular and total mortality (14) in certain intervention subgroups in a small Chinese intervention study but also noted that problems of study design and analysis meant that these findings needed replicating. These reservations appear justified in light of the 15-year follow-up of the DPP/DPPOS, which has shown no clear impact of the interventions on even surrogate markers of microvascular complications (3). Third, following the 2009 report of the International Expert Committee (15), the HbA1c test has become the main method of diagnosing both “prediabetes” and diabetes. But evidence about “prediabetes” and its management based on glycated hemoglobin does not exist. An analysis of the DPP/DPPOS in which HbA1c was used both for classification and outcome (16) showed that 13% of DPP recruits already had diabetes (HbA1c ≥6.5%) at baseline and that a sizeable proportion had levels of HbA1c below the “prediabetes” threshold. Finally, the expansion of the criteria for “prediabetes” to encompass people with elevated FPG and borderline raised levels of HbA1c raises the prevalence around threefold in the U.S. (37% of adults) (4) and sixfold in China (over 50% of adults) (17). Of the 86 million U.S. adults with “prediabetes,” around 1.7 million develop diabetes each year (4), making the annual risk around 2% rather than the 11% seen in the placebo group of the DPP (2). So in summary, studies to date suggest that intensive lifestyle interventions, largely in overweight people with IGT (around 14% of the U.S. adult population) (7), can reduce or delay the incidence of diabetes but not its long-term complications. It is unclear whether similar effects would be found in people with IFG or with borderline abnormal levels of HbA1c who comprise the majority of U.S. adults with “prediabetes.”

The results of the DPPOS were presented as showing that even after 15 years, the 2.8-year period of lifestyle intervention maintained some benefit, with a 27% reduction in incidence of diabetes (3). Yet DPPOS data show a progressive increase in mean levels of FPG in both lifestyle and placebo groups from 12 months into the study (10) (Fig. 1), as well as similar, parallel rates of incident diabetes with time (3,10). So put another way, lifestyle intervention on average delayed the incidence of diabetes by 3–4 years and metformin by somewhat less. But while “diabetes” is a category, glycemia is a continuous variable. Analyzed in this fashion, lifestyle intervention produced a mean reduction in glycated hemoglobin concentration of 0.12% during the 10 years of follow-up (10). This compares to the mean reduction of 0.9% over 10 years in the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) (18), perhaps helping to modulate the expectations from the DPP. Furthermore, rolling out DPP-type lifestyle programs for implementation in community settings has been shown to result in only one-third to one-half of the reduction in weight and glycemia seen in the DPPOS (19), leaving substantial doubt about the value of such programs.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Trends in glycemia with time and the effects of lifestyle interventions. These interventions target insulin resistance and are likely to be less effective in subjects with elevated concentrations of FPG. 2hPG, 2-h plasma glucose.

“Preventing Diabetes”—the Risks of Extrapolation

It might be worth considering what benefits might be expected by a 3- to 4-year delay, or a longer-term prevention, of newly developed diabetes. The downside of diabetes includes reduced quality of life, costs, and the risks of complications. How would these factors differ in someone with an HbA1c concentration of, say, 6.4% as a result of an intervention and someone who has developed diabetes with an HbA1c of 6.6%? Neither would have symptoms. The lifetime risk of either end-stage renal failure or blindness for someone aged 60 years with new-onset diabetes would be well below 1% (20), and there would be little expected impact on microvascular or macrovascular risks from the degree of HbA1c reduction achieved during the DPP/DPPOS (3,10,21). Diabetes health care needs and costs are likely to be dependent upon the duration of the condition and its severity and so are unlikely to differ greatly between the patient with newly diagnosed diabetes and someone with “prediabetes.” The problem of treating “prediabetes” and diabetes as transition states—separate categories, each with its own disutility and cost—also applies to many of the modeling studies summarized in the CPSTF report (22), with the notable exception of those from the DPP. If someone is considered in a mathematical model as having developed diabetes and is thus assumed to share the average health disutility (23) and the annual costs (24) assessed for a population with diabetes, this may exaggerate the apparent benefits of prevention.

The Hazards of a “Glucocentric” Definition

One hazard of the concept of “prediabetes” is its reliance on glycemia. Type 2 diabetes is a complex metabolic state. Glycemia is a major determinant of eye, kidney, and nerve damage but a relatively small player in the increased cardiovascular risk of diabetes (18,21). The overall benefit of metformin in the DPP in terms of prevention or delay of diabetes was around half that of lifestyle intervention but with marked heterogeneity—only in the DPP subjects in the highest quartile of diabetes risk did metformin show any benefit (25). So it is wrong to extrapolate the findings even to suggest that this drug, or any other, will benefit all overweight subjects with IGT and elevated FPG, let alone everyone with “prediabetes.” Were future results to show macrovascular benefits in the DPPOS with either lifestyle intervention or metformin, in neither case could it be assumed that this was related to glucose lowering. Weight loss and physical activity have numerous nonglycemic benefits on cardiovascular risk, and the findings of cardiovascular benefit from metformin in the UKPDS seemed independent of glycemia (26). Yet the “prediabetes” agenda remains one of preventing glucose-defined diabetes. In consequence this is already driving a powerful pharmacotherapy discourse going way beyond any evidence (9). If opinion leaders and guidelines committees can argue that it is worthwhile to treat people with “prediabetes” using glucose-lowering agents that have not been shown to reduce anything other than glucose concentrations, there is a risk that one-third of the U.S. and U.K. populations and possibly one-half of the adult Chinese population will be considered as possible targets.

Conclusions—What Do We Need?

This author suggests that the main transformation needed in this debate is a considered appraisal of the evidence. Statements such as those suggesting that “programs that achieve a mean weight loss at 1 year of just 2.5% confer a 60% reduction in diabetes development at 6 years” (27) inflate expectations. Type 2 diabetes is generally an asymptomatic risk factor for future disease. For the overweight subjects in the DPP, with both IGT and IFG, the chance of crossing that cut point was around 50% over a 10-year period (10). But among the 86 million people with ADA-defined “prediabetes,” the proportion who develop diabetes is around 2% per year (4). If someone is given this diagnosis, it increases their consultations with an endocrinologist by 78% (8), although to what benefit is unclear. Almost all studies on diabetes prevention antedated use of glycated hemoglobin in defining diabetes and in analyses of outcomes. The potential is there for a powerful synthesis of evidence. This needs to combine rigorous meta-analysis of the DPP/DPPOS and other diabetes prevention studies, testing different cut points for diagnosis of intermediate hyperglycemia and diabetes. It also needs to explore the relationship of these to patient-relevant outcomes, or their surrogate markers, and not just to glycemia. Until this is done, there is a risk that the “prediabetes” agenda will remain dominated by lobbying and hyperbole rather than by science.

Article Information

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

  • See accompanying article, p. 1472.

  • © 2016 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.

References

  1. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2010;33(Suppl. 1):S62–S69
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Knowler WC,
    2. Barrett-Connor E,
    3. Fowler SE, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:866–875
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    . National Diabetes Statistics Report [Internet], 2015. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014StatisticsReport.html. Accessed 22 September 2015
  5. ↵
    1. Unwin N,
    2. Shaw J,
    3. Zimmet P,
    4. Alberti KGMM
    . Impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glycaemia: the current status on definition and intervention. Diabet Med 2002;19:708–723
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Selvin E,
    2. Ning Y,
    3. Steffes MW, et al
    . Glycated hemoglobin and the risk of kidney disease and retinopathy in adults with and without diabetes. Diabetes 2011;60:298–305
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. James C,
    2. Bullard KM,
    3. Rolka DB, et al
    . Implications of alternative definitions of prediabetes for prevalence in U.S. adults. Diabetes Care 2011;34:387–391
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Dall TM,
    2. Yang W,
    3. Halder P, et al
    . The economic burden of elevated blood glucose levels in 2012: diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, and prediabetes. Diabetes Care 2014;37:3172–3179
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Yudkin JS,
    2. Montori VM
    . The epidemic of pre-diabetes: the medicine and the politics. BMJ 2014;349:g4485
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Knowler WC,
    2. Fowler SE,
    3. Hamman RF, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet 2009;374:1677–1686
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Balk EM,
    2. Earley A,
    3. Raman G,
    4. Avendano EA,
    5. Pittas AG,
    6. Remington PL
    . Combined diet and physical activity promotion programs to prevent type 2 diabetes among persons at increased risk: a systematic review for the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:437–451
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Saito T,
    2. Watanabe M,
    3. Nishida J, et al.; Zensharen Study for Prevention of Lifestyle Diseases Group
    . Lifestyle modification and prevention of type 2 diabetes in overweight Japanese with impaired fasting glucose levels: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1352–1360
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Gong Q,
    2. Gregg EW,
    3. Wang J, et al
    . Long-term effects of a randomised trial of a 6-year lifestyle intervention in impaired glucose tolerance on diabetes-related microvascular complications: the China Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Outcome Study. Diabetologia 2011;54:300–307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Li G,
    2. Zhang P,
    3. Wang J, et al
    . Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and diabetes incidence after lifestyle intervention for people with impaired glucose tolerance in the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study: a 23-year follow-up study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014;2:474–480
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. International Expert Committee
    . International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1327–1334
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . HbA1c as a predictor of diabetes and as an outcome in the diabetes prevention program: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2015;38:51–58
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Xu Y,
    2. Wang L,
    3. He J, et al.; 2010 China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance Group
    . Prevalence and control of diabetes in Chinese adults. JAMA 2013;310:948–959
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group
    . Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837–853
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Ashra NB,
    2. Spong R,
    3. Carter P, et al
    . A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of pragmatic lifestyle interventions for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in routine practice [Internet], 2015. Public Health England. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456147/PHE_Evidence_Review_of_diabetes_prevention_programmes-_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 22 September 2015
  20. ↵
    1. Vijan S,
    2. Hofer TP,
    3. Hayward RA
    . Estimated benefits of glycemic control in microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:788–795
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Stratton IM,
    2. Adler AI,
    3. Neil HA, et al
    . Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321:405–412
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Li R,
    2. Qu S,
    3. Zhang P, et al
    . Economic evaluation of combined diet and physical activity promotion programs to prevent type 2 diabetes among persons at increased risk: a systematic review for the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:452–460
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Coffey JT,
    2. Brandle M,
    3. Zhou H, et al
    . Valuing health-related quality of life in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25:2238–2243
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Brandle M,
    2. Zhou H,
    3. Smith BR, et al
    . The direct medical cost of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26:2300–2304
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Sussman JB,
    2. Kent DM,
    3. Nelson JP,
    4. Hayward RA
    . Improving diabetes prevention with benefit based tailored treatment: risk based reanalysis of Diabetes Prevention Program. BMJ 2015;350:h454
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group
    . Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34) [published correction appears in Lancet 1998;352:1558]. Lancet 1998;352:854–865
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Ackermann RT
    . Diabetes prevention at the tipping point: aligning clinical and public health recommendations. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:475–476
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 39 (8)

In this Issue

August 2016, 39(8)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
“Prediabetes”: Are There Problems With This Label? Yes, the Label Creates Further Problems!
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
“Prediabetes”: Are There Problems With This Label? Yes, the Label Creates Further Problems!
John S. Yudkin
Diabetes Care Aug 2016, 39 (8) 1468-1471; DOI: 10.2337/dc15-2113

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

“Prediabetes”: Are There Problems With This Label? Yes, the Label Creates Further Problems!
John S. Yudkin
Diabetes Care Aug 2016, 39 (8) 1468-1471; DOI: 10.2337/dc15-2113
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • “PREDIABETES”—What Is It?
    • Why Prevent Diabetes?
    • What Has Been Shown?
    • “Preventing Diabetes”—the Risks of Extrapolation
    • The Hazards of a “Glucocentric” Definition
    • Conclusions—What Do We Need?
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Is It Time to Change the Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Paradigm? No! Metformin Should Remain the Foundation Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes
  • Is It Time to Change the Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Paradigm? Yes! GLP-1 RAs Should Replace Metformin in the Type 2 Diabetes Algorithm
  • Are There Clinical Implications of Racial Differences in HbA1c? Yes, to Not Consider Can Do Great Harm!
Show more Point-Counterpoint

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.