Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess the prevalence of and trends in complications among U.S. adults with newly diagnosed diabetes.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
We included 1,486 nonpregnant adults (aged ≥20 years) with newly diagnosed diabetes (diagnosed within the past 2 years) from the 1988–1994 and 1999–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We estimated trends in albuminuria (albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2), retinopathy (any retinal microaneurysms or blot hemorrhages), and self-reported cardiovascular disease (history of congestive heart failure, heart attack, or stroke).
RESULTS
From 1988–1994 to 2011–2018, there was a significant decrease in the prevalence of albuminuria (38.9 to 18.7%, P for trend <0.001) but no change in the prevalence of reduced eGFR (7.5 to 9.9%, P for trend = 0.30), retinopathy (1988–1994 to 1999–2008 only; 13.2 to 12.1%, P for trend = 0.86), or self-reported cardiovascular disease (19.0 to 16.5%, P for trend = 0.64). There were improvements in glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control in the population, and these partially explained the decline in albuminuria. Complications were more common at the time of diabetes diagnosis for adults who were older, lower income, less educated, and obese.
CONCLUSIONS
Over the past three decades, there have been encouraging reductions in albuminuria and risk factor control in adults with newly diagnosed diabetes. However, the overall burden of complications around the time of the diagnosis remains high.
Introduction
Type 2 diabetes may be present in patients up to 12 years before its clinical diagnosis (1). During this latent period, hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors are commonly present (2), contributing to a high burden of complications at the time of diagnosis (3).
Over the past three decades, there has been an increased focus on early diabetes detection in the U.S. (4), potentially reducing the time between disease onset and clinical diagnosis. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, expert groups increasingly emphasized regular diabetes screening for asymptomatic adults (5–9), contributing to a rise in testing, especially in high-risk populations (10,11). In 1997, the threshold for diagnosing diabetes was reduced from a fasting blood glucose of 140 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL (6), and a sharp increase in the diagnosis of diabetes followed (12). In 2009, glycated hemoglobin ≥6.5% was first recommended for use in diagnosis (13).
The objective of our study was to assess the national prevalence of and trends in risk factors and microvascular and macrovascular complications among U.S. adults with newly diagnosed diabetes. To accomplish this, we analyzed three decades of data (1988–2018) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Research Design and Methods
Study Population
The NHANES is a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey designed to monitor the health of the U.S. population. During each survey cycle, a sample of participants is selected from the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population using a complex, stratified, multistage probability cluster sampling design. Data are collected from participants through in-home interviews and visits to a mobile examination center (14). The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Institutional Review Board (Hyattsville, MD) approved study protocols, and all participants provided written informed consent. We analyzed data from the NHANES III (1988–1994) and the continuous NHANES (1999–2018).
All participants were asked whether they had ever been diagnosed with diabetes other than during pregnancy. Those reporting a diagnosis of diabetes were asked how old they were when they received their diagnosis. We calculated duration of diagnosed diabetes by subtracting participants’ age of diabetes diagnosis from their age reported during the interview. We limited our analytic sample to nonpregnant adults aged ≥20 with newly diagnosed diabetes, defined as being diagnosed within the past 2 years (n = 1,486).
Risk Factor Treatment and Control
Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was measured using high-performance liquid chromatography methods. To account for changes in laboratory methods over time, we calibrated HbA1c using an equipercentile equating approach (15). We examined the proportion of participants with an HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) (16). We defined receiving diabetes treatment as the self-reported current use of blood glucose-lowering pills or insulin.
Blood pressure was measured up to three times with a mercury sphygmomanometer, and the mean of all available readings was used in the analysis. We defined hypertension as having elevated mean blood pressure (mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg or ≥130/80 mmHg) or the self-reported current use of antihypertensive medication (17,18). We defined receiving treatment as the self-reported current use of antihypertensive medication, and blood pressure control as having a mean blood pressure <140/90 mmHg or <130/80 mmHg.
Serum total cholesterol was measured enzymatically, and measurements from fasting and nonfasting participants were included in the analysis. We defined hyperlipidemia as having elevated lipids (total cholesterol ≥240 mg/dL or ≥200 mg/dL) or the self-reported current use of lipid-lowering medication (19). We defined receiving treatment as the self-reported current use of lipid-lowering medication and lipid control as total cholesterol <240 mg/dL or <200 mg/dL.
Microvascular Complications
Serum creatinine was measured using the Jaffe method. All creatinine measurements were recalibrated to standardized creatinine measurements using recommended equations that minimize the effects of laboratory drift (20). We determined the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula (21). We defined reduced eGFR as having an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Urine albumin and creatinine concentrations were measured in a random urine sample using fluorescent immunoassay and a modified Jaffe method, respectively. We defined albuminuria as an albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g. We defined any chronic kidney disease as having reduced eGFR, albuminuria, or both (22).
Medication use was assessed through pill bottle examination review. We evaluated use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers among those with chronic kidney disease.
Participants aged ≥40 had film photographs taken of one randomly selected eye in the NHANES III (1988–1994) and digital photographs taken of both eyes in the 2005–2008 NHANES. Retinopathy was assessed by graders using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) protocol (23). We defined diabetic retinopathy as having any retinal microaneurysms or blot hemorrhages, with or without more severe lesions (24).
Participants aged ≥40 participated in a lower-extremity examination during the 1999–2004 cycles of the continuous NHANES. These participants received monofilament testing on three sites on each foot. We defined peripheral neuropathy as having one or more insensate areas. Blood pressure measurements were taken at participants’ ankles and right arm. We computed the ankle-brachial pressure index by dividing systolic blood pressure measured at each ankle by the systolic blood pressure measured at the arm. We defined peripheral artery disease as having an ankle-brachial pressure index of <0.9 for either ankle (25). Participants reported whether they ever had an ulcer or sore on their legs or feet that lasted >4 weeks. We defined any lower-extremity disease as having peripheral neuropathy, peripheral artery disease, or a history of ulcers (26).
Cardiovascular Disease
Participants reported whether they had ever been diagnosed with congestive heart failure, stroke, or heart attack. We defined any cardiovascular disease as having at least one of these conditions.
Sociodemographic Measures and BMI
Participants self-reported their age, sex (male/female), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Mexican American, other), education (high school or less, some college, college graduate or above), family income (income-to-poverty ratio <130%, 130–349%, ≥350%), health insurance status (uninsured, any health insurance), access to a usual source of care (has access, no access), and smoking status (current, former, never). We calculated BMI as measured weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared and classified participants into three weight status groups (normal, BMI <25 kg/m2; overweight, BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2; obese, BMI ≥30 kg/m2).
Statistical Analyses
We calculated participant characteristics, the prevalence, treatment, and control of risk factors, and the prevalence of microvascular and cardiovascular disease over time. Because of the limited sample sizes in the individual 2-year survey cycles, we pooled survey years into three time intervals (1988–1994, 1999–2008, and 2009–2018) to improve the precision of our estimates (14). We assessed trends using logistic (binary outcomes), linear (mean of continuous outcomes), or quantile (median of continuous outcomes) regression models. Following NCHS guidelines to test for trends, we modeled the midpoint of each survey period as a continuous, linear predictor in the regression models (27). We examined the distribution of risk factors and compared changes over time using χ2 tests. For complications that changed significantly over time, we used multivariable logistic regression models to explore how changes in social demographic characteristics, diabetes risk factors, and weight status might explain the observed trends. We examined risk factors for complications by combining data from 1988 to 2018 and estimating age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-adjusted logistic regression models.
In sensitivity analyses, we repeated our trend analyses 1) adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity using predictive margins (28); and 2) defining newly diagnosed diabetes as being diagnosed in ≤1 year, a common cut point used in surveillance research (29,30). Because the approach to assessing retinopathy changed over time, we also performed a sensitivity analysis using a randomly selected fundus photograph from one eye (rather than both eyes) for the NHANES 2005–2008 cycles. Following past studies (24), we used photographs from the right eye to classify participants with an even study identification number and the left eye for those with an odd number.
All analyses were conducted using Stata version 16.0 (StataCorp). The recommended sample weights were used, making our results representative of the civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. adult population with newly diagnosed diabetes. A two-sided P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
The age and sex distribution of U.S. adults with newly diagnosed diabetes did not change significantly from 1988 to 2018 (Table 1), whereas the proportion who were non-White, college educated, or had obesity increased substantially over the 30-year period.
Table 1.
Characteristics of U.S. adults aged ≥20 years with newly diagnosed diabetes (diagnosed within the past 2 years), NHANES 1988–2018
| 1988–1994 | 1999–2008 | 2009–2018 | P for trend | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Unweighted N = 312) | (Unweighted N = 518) | (Unweighted N = 656) | ||
| Age, % | ||||
| 20–44 years | 30.1 (20.8–41.3) | 27.8 (23.1–33.2) | 21.4 (17.6–25.8) | 0.12 |
| 45–64 years | 44.9 (35.5–54.7) | 47.6 (42.0–53.3) | 52.3 (47.4–57.2) | 0.24 |
| ≥65 years | 25.0 (19.3–31.7) | 24.5 (20.1–29.7) | 26.3 (21.8–31.3) | 0.67 |
| Age, mean, years | 54.3 (51.9–56.8) | 54.0 (52.3–55.7) | 55.3 (53.8–56.7) | 0.51 |
| Race/ethnicity, % | ||||
| Non-Hispanic White | 71.1 (62.5–78.4) | 60.1 (53.3–66.7) | 59.1 (53.4–64.6) | 0.01 |
| Mexican American | 5.4 (3.8–7.6) | 8.3 (5.8–11.7) | 9.8 (7.4–12.9) | 0.003 |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 13.4 (9.8–18.0) | 18.1 (14.2–22.8) | 13.6 (10.6–17.4) | 0.85 |
| Non-Hispanic Asian* | — | — | 5.0 (3.8–6.6) | — |
| Other† | 10.2 (5.0–19.5) | 13.5 (9.4–18.9) | 12.4 (9.2–16.4) | — |
| Sex, % | 0.57 | |||
| Female | 51.8 (41.6–61.8) | 51.9 (46.3–57.5) | 49.2 (43.5–55.0) | |
| Male | 48.2 (38.2–58.4) | 48.1 (42.5–53.7) | 50.8 (45.0–56.5) | |
| Educational level, % | ||||
| High school or less | 74.2 (64.8–81.8) | 52.4 (45.8–58.8) | 47.0 (41.4–52.7) | <0.001 |
| Some college | 13.1 (7.8–21.2) | 30.8 (25.0–37.4) | 31.3 (26.0–37.3) | 0.001 |
| College graduate | 12.7 (7.3–21.2) | 16.8 (13.1–21.3) | 21.6 (16.8–27.5) | 0.05 |
| Poverty-to-income ratio, % | ||||
| <130% | 26.7 (19.9–34.9) | 27.2 (21.7–33.4) | 23.5 (19.6–28.0) | 0.37 |
| 130–350% | 49.6 (39.7–59.6) | 37.3 (31.2–43.9) | 41.5 (36.5–46.8) | 0.13 |
| ≥350% | 23.7 (16.2–33.2) | 35.5 (29.6–41.8) | 34.9 (29.5–40.8) | 0.02 |
| Usual source of care, % | 0.47 | |||
| No usual care | 6.2 (2.7–13.4) | 2.8 (1.7–4.7) | 4.0 (2.6–6.0) | |
| Any usual care | 93.8 (86.6–97.3) | 97.2 (95.3–98.3) | 96.0 (94.0–97.4) | |
| Health insurance status, % | 0.97 | |||
| Uninsured | 11.7 (6.5–20.2) | 15.5 (11.7–20.3) | 12.7 (10.1–16.0) | |
| Any insurance | 88.3 (79.8–93.5) | 84.5 (79.7–88.3) | 87.3 (84.0–89.9) | |
| BMI categories, %‡ | ||||
| Normal weight | 17.6 (11.8–25.4) | 10.9 (8.2–14.3) | 8.1 (5.6–11.6) | 0.01 |
| Overweight | 34.3 (27.0–42.5) | 28.5 (23.4–34.2) | 23.3 (19.2–27.9) | 0.01 |
| Obese | 48.1 (39.8–56.5) | 60.6 (53.9–66.9) | 68.6 (63.1–73.7) | <0.001 |
| BMI, mean, kg/m2 | 31.0 (30.0–32.0) | 33.2 (32.2–34.2) | 34.5 (33.5–35.6) | <0.001 |
| Smoking, % | ||||
| Never smoker | 37.1 (28.4–46.7) | 50.2 (45.5–55.0) | 47.3 (42.4–52.2) | 0.09 |
| Former smoker | 39.7 (29.7–50.5) | 26.6 (21.8–32.0) | 34.5 (29.1–40.3) | 0.47 |
| Current smoker | 23.2 (15.6–33.1) | 23.2 (19.2–27.6) | 18.2 (14.4–22.8) | 0.29 |
Data are presented as percentages or means (with 95% CIs).
Representative information for non-Hispanic Asians only available in the 2011–2018 NHANES.
Trend not tested for “other” racial/ethnic group because of changing definition over survey years.
Normal weight defined as BMI <25 kg/m2; overweight defined as BMI ≥25 and <30 kg/m2; and obese defined as BMI ≥30 kg/m2.
The proportion of adults with good glycemic control (HbA1c <7% [<53 mmol/mol]) increased substantially (59.8 to 73.7%, P for trend = 0.002) (Table 2 and Supplementary Fig. 1). While the proportion receiving any glucose-lowering treatment was unchanged, the proportion using any insulin declined from 12.8 to 7.5% (P for trend = 0.03).
Table 2.
Trends in the prevalence, treatment, and control of risk factors among U.S. adults with newly diagnosed diabetes (diagnosed within the past 2 years), NHANES 1988–2018
| 1988–1994 | 1999–2008 | 2009–2018 | P for trend | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose control | ||||
| HbA1c, % points, median | 6.3 (5.6–8.1) | 6.2 (5.7–7.1) | 6.2 (5.7–7.1) | 0.24 |
| HbA1c, % points, mean | 7.0 (6.6–7.3) | 6.8 (6.5–7.1) | 6.7 (6.5–6.8) | 0.02 |
| Treated, % | ||||
| Insulin or oral medication use | 73.0 (65.1–79.6) | 73.1 (67.6–78.1) | 72.8 (67.3–77.6) | 0.86 |
| Oral medication use only | 60.2 (51.8–68.0) | 66.5 (60.8–71.9) | 65.3 (59.3–70.8) | 0.35 |
| Any insulin use | 12.8 (8.6–18.7) | 6.6 (3.7–11.4) | 7.5 (5.4–10.3) | 0.03 |
| HbA1c <7.0%-points (<53 mmol/mol), % | 59.8 (50.0–69.0) | 69.9 (63.0–76.0) | 73.7 (68.9–78.1) | 0.002 |
| Blood pressure | ||||
| Systolic, mmHg median | 130.0 (119.0–137.0) | 126.7 (118.0–137.3) | 124.0 (114.0–135.3) | 0.02 |
| Diastolic, mmHg, median | 78.0 (73.0–85.0) | 72.7 (64.0–82.0) | 72.0 (64.7–79.0) | <0.001 |
| Systolic, mmHg, mean | 130.1 (127.4–132.8) | 129.2 (127.0–131.4) | 126.0 (124.2–127.7) | 0.02 |
| Diastolic , mmHg, mean | 77.5 (75.9–79.2) | 72.0 (69.9–74.1) | 72.1 (70.8–73.5) | <0.001 |
| Treated, % | 39.5 (30.4–49.5) | 51.5 (45.4–57.5) | 55.2 (49.3–61.0) | 0.01 |
| Hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg or med use), % | 48.9 (40.3–57.5) | 59.5 (53.2–65.4) | 61.2 (55.2–67.0) | 0.03 |
| Treated* | 81.4 (69.3–89.5) | 86.0 (79.8–90.5) | 90.1 (86.1–93.1) | 0.08 |
| Treated and controlled (blood pressure <140/90 mmHg)* | 47.8 (35.8–60.0) | 58.9 (51.3–66.2) | 65.9 (58.7–72.3) | 0.02 |
| Hypertension (≥130/80 mmHg or med use), % | 71.4 (61.0–79.9) | 71.1 (65.5–76.2) | 71.1 (65.0–76.5) | 0.97 |
| Treated* | 55.6 (43.9–66.6) | 71.9 (64.9–78.0) | 77.6 (72.0–82.4) | 0.001 |
| Treated and controlled (blood pressure <130/80 mmHg)* | 9.0 (4.6–17.0) | 28.5 (23.0–34.8) | 36.8 (30.7–43.4) | <0.001 |
| Lipids | ||||
| Total cholesterol, mg/dL, median | 212.0 (187.0–246.0) | 192.0 (166.0–218.0) | 181.0 (153.0–208.0) | <0.001 |
| Total cholesterol, mg/dL, mean | 219.4 (210.0–228.8) | 198.4 (192.5–204.2) | 182.4 (178.3–186.6) | <0.001 |
| Treated, % | 14.1 (8.3–22.9) | 35.2 (29.1–41.7) | 43.8 (37.8–49.9) | <0.001 |
| Hyperlipidemia (total cholesterol ≥240 mg/dL or med use), % | 40.3 (30.2–51.3) | 45.4 (39.5–51.4) | 49.8 (44.3–55.4) | 0.14 |
| Treated† | 32.4 (20.5–47.2) | 71.1 (62.7–78.2) | 86.1 (81.1–90.0) | <0.001 |
| Treated and controlled (total cholesterol <240 mg/dL)† | 17.1 (7.6–34.1) | 45.0 (34.5–55.9) | 71.2 (63.9–77.6) | <0.001 |
| Hyperlipidemia (total cholesterol ≥200 mg/dL or med use), % | 71.6 (65.3–77.1) | 65.1 (59.7–70.2) | 66.3 (61.3–70.9) | 0.14 |
| Treated† | 18.5 (11.0–29.4) | 51.5 (43.8–59.1) | 65.4 (58.4–71.8) | <0.001 |
| Treated and controlled (total cholesterol <200 mg/dL)† | 9.4 (4.2–19.7) | 29.9 (22.2–39.0) | 52.4 (45.1–59.5) | <0.001 |
| All three risk factors controlled | ||||
| HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) plus | ||||
| Blood pressure <130/80 mmHg, total cholesterol <200 mg/dL, % | 9.4 (6.1–14.2) | 18.1 (13.6–23.8) | 33.0 (27.0–39.5) | <0.001 |
| Blood pressure <140/90 mmHg, total cholesterol <240 mg/dL, % | 31.6 (23.6–40.9) | 47.8 (41.2–54.5) | 56.2 (51.2–61.1) | <0.001 |
Data are presented as percentages or as means (with 95% CIs) or median (with interquartile range).
Computed for those with hypertension.
Computed for those with hyperlipidemia.
Adults with newly diagnosed diabetes achieving blood pressure control increased during the 30-year period (Supplementary Fig. 1), as did the use of blood pressure-lowering medication (Table 2). The overall prevalence of hypertension increased when defined as ≥140/90 mmHg. When defined as ≥130/80 mmHg, the prevalence of hypertension was unchanged. An increasing proportion of adults with hypertension were treated and controlled to <140/90 mmHg (47.8 to 65.9%, P for trend = 0.02) and <130/80 mmHg (9.0 to 36.8%, P for trend <0.001), respectively.
The proportion with cholesterol control increased (Supplementary Fig. 1). The use of lipid-lowering medication rose significantly (Table 2), and the prevalence of hyperlipidemia was stable. An increasing share of those with hyperlipidemia were treated and controlled to total cholesterol <240 mg/dL (17.1 to 71.2%, P for trend <0.001) or <200 mg/dL (9.4 to 52.4%, P for trend <0.001), respectively.
The prevalence of any chronic kidney disease declined from 40.4 to 25.5% (P for trend = 0.003) (Table 3). These gains were driven by declines in albuminuria (38.9 to 18.7%, P for trend <0.001). In contrast, reduced eGFR remained stable over time (7.5 to 9.9%, P = 0.30). The use of ACE inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers increased substantially among those with low eGFR or albuminuria (Supplementary Table 1).
Table 3.
Trends in the prevalence of complications among U.S. adults with newly diagnosed diabetes (diagnosed within the past 2 years), NHANES 1988–2018
| 1988–1994 | 1999–2008 | 2009–2018 | P for trend | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any chronic kidney disease | 40.4 (31.8–49.5) | 28.0 (23.8–32.7) | 25.5 (21.7–29.7) | 0.003 |
| Albuminuria (albumin-to-creatine ratio ≥30 mg/g) | 38.9 (30.7–47.9) | 21.0 (17.2–25.3) | 18.7 (15.6–22.3) | <0.001 |
| Reduced eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m2) | 7.5 (4.4–12.5) | 10.2 (7.4–13.9) | 9.9 (7.3–13.3) | 0.30 |
| Retinopathy* | 13.2 (6.7–24.3) | 12.1 (6.8–20.4) | — | 0.86 |
| Any self-reported cardiovascular disease | 19.0 (13.5–26.1) | 14.8 (11.6–18.6) | 16.5 (12.6–21.3) | 0.64 |
| History of congestive heart failure | 6.9 (3.9–11.8) | 6.4 (4.3–9.5) | 5.1 (3.2–7.8) | 0.35 |
| History of stroke | 6.8 (3.7–12.2) | 6.4 (4.4–9.1) | 6.4 (4.5–9.1) | 0.95 |
| History of heart attack | 10.2 (6.1–16.4) | 6.6 (4.8–9.1) | 9.4 (6.3–13.7) | 0.90 |
Data are presented as percentages (with 95% CIs).
Retinopathy was defined as ≥1 retinal microaneurysms or blot hemorrhages. Data were only available for adults aged ≥40 during the 1988–1994 and 2005–2008 NHANES survey cycles.
The prevalence of retinopathy among U.S. adults aged ≥40 with newly diagnosed diabetes was unchanged from 1988 to 2008 (13.2 to 12.1%) (Table 3). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses using one fundus photograph to classify participants in the 2005–2008 NHANES (results not shown).
The prevalence of any self-reported cardiovascular disease was stable from 1988 to 2018 (19.0 to 16.5%) (Table 3). The prevalence of lower-extremity diseases—peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease, or ulcers—in the 1999–2004 period was ∼24%, 15%, 9%, and 6%, respectively (Supplementary Table 1). Limited data availability (1999–2004 only) precluded trend analyses of lower-extremity diseases.
We explored factors that might explain declines in the prevalence of albuminuria. Differences in albuminuria across time periods increased after adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity but decreased after adjusting for education (Supplementary Table 2). Changes in HbA1c, blood pressure, and total cholesterol partially accounted for the population-level improvements in albuminuria. Adjusting for weight status increased differences in albuminuria over time.
After adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, the prevalence of any complication for adults with newly diagnosed diabetes was higher among those who were older, lower income, less educated, current or former smokers, and obese (Table 4).
Table 4.
Adjusted odds ratios (95% CIs) for the associations of risk factors with complications in U.S. adults with newly diagnosed diabetes (diagnosed within the past 2 years), NHANES 1988–2018*
| Any complication† | Any microvascular complication | Any self-reported cardiovascular disease | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| 20–44 years (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 45–64 years | 1.56 (0.93–2.62) | 1.25 (0.69–2.26) | 2.68 (1.02–7.03) |
| 65 years | 2.86 (1.66–4.94) | 2.14 (1.21–3.79) | 8.28 (3.41–20.15) |
| Race/ethnicity | |||
| Non-Hispanic White (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mexican American | 0.67 (0.45–1.01) | 0.83 (0.56–1.23) | 0.48 (0.25–0.91) |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 0.90 (0.63–1.28) | 0.88 (0.62–1.26) | 1.09 (0.67–1.78) |
| Sex | |||
| Female (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Male | 1.31 (0.90–1.91) | 1.06 (0.73–1.54) | 1.50 (0.94–2.40) |
| Income-to-poverty ratio | |||
| ≥350% (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 130–350% | 1.98 (1.22–3.23) | 1.58 (0.97–2.58) | 1.82 (0.96–3.42) |
| <130% | 1.81 (1.11–2.97) | 1.49 (0.91–2.44) | 2.04 (1.03–4.01) |
| Education level | |||
| College graduate (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Some college | 1.63 (0.88–3.02) | 1.14 (0.60–2.18) | 2.13 (0.94–4.82) |
| ≥ High school | 2.31 (1.36–3.92) | 1.68 (0.97–2.93) | 2.43 (1.16–5.08) |
| Smoking status | |||
| Never (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Former | 1.69 (1.09–2.61) | 1.22 (0.78–1.93) | 1.81 (1.07–3.08) |
| Current | 1.80 (1.10–2.95) | 1.48 (0.90–2.42) | 2.46 (1.29–4.67) |
| Obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) | |||
| No (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 1.50 (1.04–2.18) | 1.23 (0.85–1.77) | 1.56 (0.99–2.45) |
Ref, reference.
Odds ratios were adjusted for age, sex, and race/ethnicity.
Defined as any microvascular complication (chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, or lower-extremity disease) or any self-reported cardiovascular disease (history of congestive heart failure, heart attack, or stroke).
Trends in risk factors and complications were similar after adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4) and when defining newly diagnosed diabetes as being diagnosed within 1 year (Supplementary Tables 5 and 6).
Conclusions
From 1988 to 2018, there were marked improvements in the treatment and control of risk factors (HbA1c, blood pressure, or cholesterol) and a substantial decline in the prevalence of albuminuria in U.S. adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. However, the burden of complications remained high. Approximately 26% had chronic kidney disease, 24% had lower-extremity disease, 12% had retinopathy, and 17% had a history of cardiovascular disease.
Our findings extend population research on the health status of adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. A prior U.S. population-based study using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) found that from 1997 to 2003 the prevalence of obesity rose among adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, while the prevalence of cardiovascular disease and hypertension was unchanged (31). However, data in the NHIS are entirely self-reported. When examining a broader range of objectively measured risk factors and comorbidities, we confirmed the increase in obesity but also found evidence of improvements in glycemic control and kidney health.
The reduction in albuminuria was likely related to major improvements in the detection of diabetes over the study period (4). This is consistent with research showing that the proportion of undiagnosed diabetes cases has decreased in the past two decades (2,32). Declines in albuminuria were especially pronounced from 1988–1994 to 1999–2008, corresponding to the reduction of the fasting blood glucose diagnostic threshold and increased emphasis on diabetes screening (5–9). We also found that declines in HbA1c, blood pressure, and total cholesterol explained some of the decrease in albuminuria. Results for HbA1c and blood pressure are consistent with landmark trials demonstrating the benefits of tight glycemic and blood pressure control (33,34), and findings for total cholesterol are congruent with research suggesting an association between dyslipidemia and kidney disease risk (35). Increasing educational attainment was another important contributor and suggests the fundamental importance of education in health. Growing awareness of the importance of albuminuria among clinicians, along with rising use of renin-angiotensin system blockers, were likely important factors as well.
The high burden of complications suggests that timely detection of diabetes remains a challenge for some patients. In particular, we found that adults who were older, lower income, less educated, or obese had the highest prevalence of complications at the time of diagnosis. Approximately half of eligible U.S. adults receive recommended diabetes screenings, although uptake is significantly lower among certain high-risk groups, such as those who are low-income (11). More targeted screening programs for high-risk, underserved patients may thus reduce complications at diagnosis. Our findings also indicate that more aggressive treatment of risk factors immediately after diagnosis may be needed. In particular, we found that control of hypertension or hyperlipidemia failed in up to 63% and 48% of adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, respectively, highlighting the need to prioritize blood pressure and lipid management.
We observed a nonsignificant increase in the prevalence of reduced eGFR from 1988–1994 to 1999–2008, followed by little change in 2009–2018. These trends are consistent with trends in the total population of adults with diabetes. In U.S. adults with diabetes, the prevalence of reduced eGFR increased in 1988–1994 to 2003–2004 before subsequently leveling off in 2011–2012 (36). Prior studies speculate that rising blood pressure treatment and control may account for some of the increase in reduced eGFR in adults with diabetes due to their hemodynamic effects (37,38). Consistent with this suggestion, we found that trends in blood pressure-lowering medication use followed trends in reduced eGFR, rising from 1988–1994 to 1999–2008 and leveling off in 2009–2018.
We also did not observe any major improvements in the prevalence of retinopathy or cardiovascular disease in adults with newly diagnosed diabetes over this 30-year period. However, these findings must be viewed in light of some methodological limitations. The NHANES III (1988–1994) used film photography to assess retinopathy, whereas the NHANES 2005–2008 used higher-quality digital photography. Detection of retinopathy may therefore have been more sensitive in the later survey years, potentially affecting the comparability of estimates across years (24). Likewise, we likely underestimate the true prevalence of cardiovascular disease, because this information is self-reported in NHANES. In particular, subclinical cardiovascular disease is common in older adults and those with diabetes (39). Trends will also reflect improvements in detection and survival; studies of the general population with diabetes have found steady declines in cardiovascular complications and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (40–42).
Our study has several additional limitations. First, there may be misclassification of incident diabetes cases, because our definition relies on participants accurately reporting their diabetes status and age of diagnosis. However, prior research indicates that these measures are highly specific and reliable (43,44). Second, because of sample size limitations, we may have lacked the power to detect small changes in complications over time. Third, retinopathy and lower-extremity disease assessments were only performed in those aged ≥40 years. Thus, we were not able to draw conclusions regarding these outcomes in younger individuals. Fourth, our study was cross-sectional, and we cannot determine the temporality of the observed associations.
Strengths of the study include the contemporary, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults with newly diagnosed diabetes spanning 30 years. With the exception of cardiovascular disease, the assessment of risk factors and complications was based on objective, rigorous, and systematic measurement.
Over the past three decades, there were significant reductions in albuminuria and improvements in the treatment and control of HbA1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol in adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. These results suggest that there have been improvements in diabetes screening and that we are diagnosing cases earlier in the disease process. Nevertheless, the overall burden of complications and uncontrolled risk factors remains high. Targeted screening of high-risk populations and aggressive risk factor treatment immediately following diagnosis are important strategies for sustaining progress moving forward.
Article Information
Funding. M.F. is supported by National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant T32 HL007024. E.S. is supported by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant K24 DK106414.
The funders had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or writing of this study.
Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
Author Contributions. M.F. and E.S. designed the study. M.F. conducted the statistical analysis. M.F. drafted the manuscript. M.F. controlled the decision to publish. E.S. guided the statistical analysis. E.S. provided critical revisions to the manuscript. Both authors approved the final manuscript. The corresponding author, E.S., attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. M.F. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Footnotes
This article contains supplementary material online at https://doi.org/10.2337/figshare.13308467.
References
- 1.Harris MI, Klein R, Welborn TA, Knuiman MW. Onset of NIDDM occurs at least 4-7 yr before clinical diagnosis. Diabetes Care 1992;15:815–819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Selvin E, Wang D, Lee AK, Bergenstal RM, Coresh J. Identifying trends in undiagnosed diabetes in U.S. adults by using a confirmatory definition: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:769–776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Engelgau MM, Narayan KM, Herman WH. Screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23:1563–1580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Selvin E, Ali MK. Declines in the incidence of diabetes in the U.S.—real progress or artifact? Diabetes Care 2017;40:1139–1143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:212–214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1183–1197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Pearson TA, Blair SN, Daniels SR, et al.; American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee . AHA guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke: 2002 update: consensus panel guide to comprehensive risk reduction for adult patients without coronary or other atherosclerotic vascular diseases. Circulation 2002;106:388–391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee . Canadian Diabetes Association 2003 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2003;27(Suppl. 2):S1–S152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.World Health Organization . Screening for type 2 diabetes: report of a World Health Organization and International Diabetes Federation meeting. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization, 2003 [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cowie CC, Harris MI, Eberhardt MS. Frequency and determinants of screening for diabetes in the U.S. Diabetes Care 1994;17:1158–1163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Bullard KM, Ali MK, Imperatore G, et al. Receipt of glucose testing and performance of two US diabetes screening guidelines, 2007–2012. PLoS One 2015;10:e0125249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Geiss LS, Wang J, Cheng YJ, et al. Prevalence and incidence trends for diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 20 to 79 years, United States, 1980-2012. JAMA 2014;312:1218–1226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.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 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Johnson CL, Paulose-Ram R, Ogden CL, et al. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: analytic guidelines, 1999-2010. Vital Health Stat 2 2013;1–24 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Selvin E, Parrinello CM, Sacks DB, Coresh J. Trends in prevalence and control of diabetes in the United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2010. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:517–525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.American Diabetes Association . 6. Glycemic targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care 2020;43(Suppl. 1):S66–S76 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.American Diabetes Association . 10. Cardiovascular disease and risk management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care 2020;43(Suppl. 1):S111–S134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines [published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:2275–2279]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:e127–e248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) . Third report of the National cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation 2002;106:3143–3421 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Selvin E, Manzi J, Stevens LA, et al. Calibration of serum creatinine in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 1988-1994, 1999-2004. Am J Kidney Dis 2007;50:918–926 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al.; CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) . A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate [published correction appears in Ann Intern Med 2011;155:408]. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:604–612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Levey AS, Eckardt K-U, Tsukamoto Y, et al. Definition and classification of chronic kidney disease: a position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int 2005;67:2089–2100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group . Grading diabetic retinopathy from stereoscopic color fundus photographs--an extension of the modified Airlie House classification. ETDRS report number 10. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology 1991;98(Suppl.):786–806 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Zhang X, Saaddine JB, Chou C-F, et al. Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the United States, 2005-2008. JAMA 2010;304:649–656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Gerhard-Herman MD, Gornik HL, Barrett C, et al. 2016 AHA/ACC guideline on the management of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:1465–1508 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gregg EW, Sorlie P, Paulose-Ram R, et al.; 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey . Prevalence of lower-extremity disease in the US adult population >=40 years of age with and without diabetes: 1999-2000 national health and nutrition examination survey. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1591–1597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ingram DD, Malec DJ, Makuc DM, et al. National Center for Health Statistics guidelines for analysis of trends. Vital Health Stat 2 2018:1–71 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Graubard BI, Korn EL. Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics 1999;55:652–659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020: Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States. 2020. Accessed 1 July 2020. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf [Google Scholar]
- 30.Benoit SR, Hora I, Albright AL, Gregg EW. New directions in incidence and prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in the USA. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2019;7:e000657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Geiss LS, Pan L, Cadwell B, Gregg EW, Benjamin SM, Engelgau MM. Changes in incidence of diabetes in U.S. adults, 1997-2003. Am J Prev Med 2006;30:371–377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Menke A, Casagrande S, Geiss L, Cowie CC. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among adults in the United States, 1988-2012. JAMA 2015;314:1021–1029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.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) [published correction appears in Lancet 1999;354:602]. Lancet 1998;352:837–853 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group . Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38 [published correction appears in BMJ 1999;318:29]. BMJ 1998;317:703–713 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Muskiet MH, Tonneijck L, Smits MM, Kramer MH, Heerspink HJL, van Raalte DH. Pleiotropic effects of type 2 diabetes management strategies on renal risk factors. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:367–381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Murphy D, McCulloch CE, Lin F, et al.; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chronic Kidney Disease Surveillance Team . Trends in prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2016;165:473–481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Afkarian M, Zelnick LR, Hall YN, et al. Clinical manifestations of kidney disease among US adults with diabetes, 1988-2014. JAMA 2016;316:602–610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.de Boer IH, Rue TC, Hall YN, Heagerty PJ, Weiss NS, Himmelfarb J. Temporal trends in the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA 2011;305:2532–2539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kuller L, Borhani N, Furberg C, et al. Prevalence of subclinical atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease and association with risk factors in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:1164–1179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Gregg EW, Li Y, Wang J, et al. Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States, 1990-2010. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1514–1523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, Srinivasan M, et al. Trends in cause-specific mortality among adults with and without diagnosed diabetes in the USA: an epidemiological analysis of linked national survey and vital statistics data. Lancet 2018;391:2430–2440 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Fox CS, Coady S, Sorlie PD, et al. Trends in cardiovascular complications of diabetes. JAMA 2004;292:2495–2499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Pastorino S, Richards M, Hardy R, et al.; National Survey of Health and Development Scientific and Data Collection Teams . Validation of self-reported diagnosis of diabetes in the 1946 British birth cohort. Prim Care Diabetes 2015;9:397–400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Schneider AL, Pankow JS, Heiss G, Selvin E. Validity and reliability of self-reported diabetes in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Am J Epidemiol 2012;176:738–743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]