A workshop was convened by the International Diabetes Federation to review the latest information relating to the risks associated with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glycaemia (IFG) for future diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The workshop sought to address three questions: (i) are the current definitions of IGT and IFG appropriate; (ii) are IFG and IGT risk factors, risk markers or diseases; (iii) what interventions (if any) should be recommended for people with IFG and IGT? The determinants of elevated fasting glucose and 2-h plasma glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test (2-HPG) levels differ. Raised hepatic glucose output and a defect in early insulin secretion are characteristic of the former, and peripheral insulin resistance is most characteristic of the latter. Therefore, it is not surprising that the concordance between the categories of IFG and IGT is limited. In all prevalence studies to date only half or less of people with IFG have IGT, and even a lower proportion (20-30%) with IGT also have IFG. In the majority of populations studied, IGT is more prevalent than IFG, and there is a difference in phenotype and gender distribution between the two categories. IFG is substantially more common amongst men and IGT slightly more common amongst women. The prevalence of IFG tends to plateau in middle age whereas the prevalence of IGT rises into old age. Both IFG and IGT are associated with a substantially increased risk of developing diabetes, with the highest risk in people with combined IFG and IGT. Because IGT is commoner than IFG in most populations it is more sensitive (but slightly less specific) for identifying people who will develop diabetes. In most populations studied, 60% of people who develop diabetes have either IGT or IFG 5 years or so before, with the other 40% having normal glucose tolerance at that time. The limited published data suggest that both isolated IFG (I-IFG) and isolated IGT (I-IGT) are similarly associated with cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and dyslipidaemia, with the highest risk in those with combined IFG and IGT. However, some data have suggested that I-IGT is more strongly associated with hypertension and dyslipidaemia (features of the metabolic syndrome) than I-IFG. In unadjusted analyses both IFG and IGT are associated with CVD and total mortality. In separate analyses for fasting and 2-HPG adjusted for other cardiovascular risk factors (from the DECODE study) there remains a continuous relationship between 2-HPG and mortality, but an independent relationship with fasting glucose is only found above 7.0 mmol/l. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels are continuously and positively associated with CVD and total mortality independent of other CVD risk factors. Life style interventions, including weight loss and increased physical activity, are highly effective in preventing or delaying the onset of diabetes in people with IGT. Two randomized controlled trials of individuals with IGT found that life style intervention studies reduce the risk of progressing to diabetes by 58%. The oral hypoglycaemic drugs metformin and acarbose have also been shown to be effective, but less so than the life style measures. Similar data do not yet exist for the effectiveness of such interventions in people with I-IFG. Larger studies are required to evaluate the effects of interventions on cardiovascular outcomes in people with IGT. Cost effective strategies to identify people with IGT for intervention should be developed and evaluated. The use of simple risk scores to assess who should undergo an oral glucose tolerance test is one promising approach, although these will need to be population-specific. In conclusion, IGT and IFG differ in their prevalence, population distribution, phenotype, and risk of total mortality and CVD. The consensus of the workshop was: 1. The diagnostic thresholds for all categories of glucose intolerance should be revisited in the light of the latest evidence. There was no clear consensus (with current evidence) on whether IFG and IGT should be classified as diseases, but they clearly represent risk factors and risk markers for diabetes and CVD, respectively. 2. Both IGT and IFG are similarly associated with an increased risk of diabetes, but IGT is more strongly associated with CVD outcomes. 3. Risks are higher when IGT and IFG coexist. 4. Life style interventions are highly effective in delaying or preventing the onset of diabetes in people with IGT and may reduce CVD and total mortality, but the latter requires formal testing.

OBJECTIVE—To estimate the global number of excess deaths due to diabetes in the year 2000. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We used a computerized generic formal disease model (DisMod II), used by the World Health Organization to assess disease burden through modeling the relationships between incidence, prevalence, and disease-specific mortality. Baseline input data included population structure, age- and sex-specific estimates of diabetes prevalence, and available published estimates of relative risk of death for people with diabetes compared with people without diabetes. The results were validated with population-based observations and independent estimates of relative risk of death. RESULTS—The excess global mortality attributable to diabetes in the year 2000 was estimated to be 2.9 million deaths, equivalent to 5.2% of all deaths. Excess mortality attributable to diabetes accounted for 2–3% of deaths in poorest countries and over 8% in the U.S., Canada, and the Middle East. In people 35–64 years old, 6–27% of deaths were attributable to diabetes. CONCLUSIONS—These are the first global estimates of mortality attributable to diabetes. Globally, diabetes is likely to be the fifth leading cause of death.

Objective: To compare coronary risk factors and disease prevalence among Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, and in all South Asians (these three groups together) with Europeans. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: Newcastle upon Tyne. Participants: 259 Indian, 305 Pakistani, 120 Bangladeshi, and 825 European men and women aged 25-74 years. Main outcome measures: Social and economic circumstances, lifestyle, self reported symptoms and diseases, blood pressure, electrocardiogram, and anthropometric, haematological, and biochemical measurements. Results: There were differences in social and economic circumstances, lifestyles, anthropometric measures and disease both between Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis and between all South Asians and Europeans. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were the poorest groups. For most risk factors, the Bangladeshis (particularly men) fared the worst: smoking was most common (57%) in that group, and Bangladeshis had the highest concentrations of triglycerides (2.04 mmol/l) and fasting blood glucose (6.6 mmol/l) and the lowest concentration of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.97 mmol/l). Blood pressure, however, was lowest in Bangladeshis. Bangladeshis were the shortest (men 164 cm tall v 170 cm for Indians and 174 cm for Europeans). A higher proportion of Pakistani and Bangladeshi men had diabetes (22.4% and 26.6% respectively) than Indians (15.2%). Comparisons of all South Asians with Europeans hid some important differences, but South Asians were still disadvantaged in a wide range of risk factors Findings in women were similar. Conclusion: Risk of coronary heart disease is not uniform among South Asians, and there are important differences between Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis for many coronary risk factors. The belief that, except for insulin resistance, South Asians have lower levels of coronary risk factors than Europeans is incorrect, and may have arisen from combining ethnic subgroups and examining a narrow range of factors. South Asians have more coronary heart disease than Europeans despite apparently lower levels of risk factors This study shows that Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis differ in a wide range of coronary risk factors and combining their data is misleading Among South Asians, Indians were least and Bangladeshis most disadvantaged in a range of coronary risk factors. South Asians were disadvantaged in comparison with Europeans Future research and prevention strategies for coronary heart disease in South Asians should acknowledge a broad range of risk factors, the heterogeneity of these populations, linguistic and cultural needs, and environmental factors

OBJECTIVE: To establish the relation between socioeconomic status and the age-sex specific prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The hypothesis was that prevalence of type 2 diabetes would be inversely related to socioeconomic status but there would be no association with the prevalence of type 1 diabetes and socioeconomic status. SETTING: Middlesbrough and East Cleveland, United Kingdom, district population 287 157. PATIENTS: 4313 persons with diabetes identified from primary care and hospital records. RESULTS: The overall age adjusted prevalence was 15.60 per 1000 population. There was a significant trend between the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and quintile of deprivation score in men and women (χ² for linear trend, p<0.001). In men the prevalence in the least deprived quintile was 13.4 per 1000 (95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 11.44, 15.36) compared with 17.22 per 1000 (95% CI 15.51, 18.92) in the most deprived. For women the prevalence was 10.84 per 1000 (95% CI 9.00, 12.69) compared with 15.48 per 1000 (95% CI 13.84, 17.11) in the most deprived. The increased prevalence of diabetes in the most deprived areas was accounted for by increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the age band 40–69 years. There was no association between the prevalence of type 1 diabetes and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: These data confirm an inverse association between socioeconomic status and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the middle years of life. This finding suggests that exposure to factors that are implicated in the causation of diabetes is more common in deprived areas.