"The wonderful things about standards is that there are so many to choose from". I bet you can find ADA's "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" documents going back at least a couple years on the web. The AACE has a similar set of standards (with slightly different numbers.)
When I was diagnosed, it was without a blood test. The definition of diabetes, for thousands of years, was "sugar in urine". It's only in the past 30 years that blood tests counted too (or today, instead). When I was a kid... turning testape jet black counted for sure back then!
I found this article. I skimmed it quickly and it looks like there was a change in late 1997/early 1998. Not sure if this is the change you're looking for.
I have always wondered about this with regard to type 2 diabetes. You hear so much about the "diabetes epidemic" (largely attributable to an increase in type 2 diagnoses), but I know that some people who are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes now would not have received such a diagnosis 20 or 30 years ago. Does anyone know how much of the reported increase in type 2 diabetes is simply due to a change in the standards for diagnosis of type 2?
Just read an article saying 2002 went from 130 to 100 fasting. Sure added a lot of people Im sure!!
130 to 100 fasting would sure cause an "Epidemic" all by itself.
Thanks for the replies and article!!
this was what I was given.
I found the (United States) numbers for 2002:
American Diabetes Association, non-diabetic fasting blood sugar 90 - 130 mg/dL
American College of Endocrinology, non-diabetic fasting blood sugar <110 mg/dL American Diabetes Association, non-diabetic 2 hours after a meal blood sugar <180 mg/dL American College of Endocrinology, non-diabetic 2 hours after a meal blood sugar <140 mg/dL American Diabetes Association, A1c < 7.0% American College of Endocrinology A1c < 6.5% Today it is widely accepted that the non-diabetic fasting blood sugar reading should be <100 mg/dL Today it is widely accepted that the non-diabetic 2 hours after a meal reading should be <140 mg/dL Even though the recommended numbers for the A1c haven't changed since 2002, (see above), I know that many physicians would like to see the number to be less than 6.0%.
Are those the diagnostic criteria?
I think. I didnt read the article this was what I was given. There is this: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046782.php
I havent read the whole thing but I have heard at different places that the diagnostic criteria lowered some years back. Im still in search for the info. If you know something or somewhere I need to look Shawnmarie I would certainly appreciate it!!
I'm always a bit bemused when I see phrases like "my endo insists on seeing me every 6 weeks." Since you aren't on any meds and have excellent numbers, what in the world would be the purpose for that? I believe that we, as consumers of services have the right to make decisions about our own health care. If I couldn't get a meaningful explanation for why a doctor wanted to see me every 6 weeks under your situation and if it didn't make sense I'd say I would like to change that to 6 months (or whatever you feel comfortable with). If he said, " I won't see you under those circumstances" I'd say, Adios! and find another doctor. In your situation I wouldn't bother with an endo, but would just see PCP.
Actually in my situation (Type 1, on insulin) I just see a PCP, but I know not everyone would be comfortable with that.
You or others can get angry all you want about where the diagnosis line is today or was a couple years ago, blame it all on the ADA or JDRF or AACE or whatever acronym you please, but for thousands of years the definition of diabetes was "sugar in urine" and nothing else. In the past couple decades we've seen a real revolution in how we define and measure it, all for the better.