Cited by 144Diabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

The Prevalence of Type 1 Diabetes in the United States

Open access
Menke, Andy, Orchard, Trevor J., Imperatore, Giuseppina, Bullard, Kai McKeever, Mayer-Davis, Elizabeth, Cowie, Catherine C.·2013·Epidemiology

Abstract

To the Editor: There are few data on the prevalence of type 1 diabetes mellitus1,2 and no estimates for the entire US population. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a representative cross-sectional survey of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population. Although NHANES does not explicitly collect information on type 1 diabetes mellitus, we estimated the prevalence based on age of diabetes diagnosis, the age of insulin initiation, and current use of insulin.3 The protocol for the 1999–2010 NHANES was approved by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Ethics Review Board. All participants gave written informed consent. After excluding 2955 infants for whom diabetes data were not collected and 75 children and adults who were missing diabetes data, 59,130 participants remained in the analytic sample.4 We considered participants to have type 1 diabetes mellitus if they started insulin within 1 year of diabetes diagnosis, were currently using insulin and were diagnosed with diabetes under age 30 (definition 1) or under age 40 (definition 2). Data were analyzed using SUDAAN, version 10.0 (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC), accounting for the complex sampling design used in NHANES. The prevalence of diabetes (by each definition) was calculated overall and by age, race/ethnicity, and sex. The sum of sample weights was used to estimate the total number of the US population with type 1 diabetes. We calculated the percentage of diagnosed diabetes and all diabetes (diagnosed diabetes, or hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL) that was type 1. The overall fractions (weighted number) with type 1 diabetes mellitus based on definitions 1 and 2 were 2.6/1000 (740,000 people) and 3.4/1000 (970,000 people), respectively (Table). The proportions of diagnosed diabetes that were type 1 were 4.6% and 6.0%, respectively. The proportions of all diabetes that were type 1 were 3.6% and 4.8% for definitions 1 and 2, respectively. Prevalence of type 1 diabetes mellitus increased an average of 0.08% per 4 years for both definitions during the 12-year period 1999–2010 (test for trend, P = 0.02 for definition 1 and 0.06 for definition 2).TABLE: Percentage of Participants with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Overall and by Age, Race/Ethnicity, and Sex, NHANES 1999–2010 (n = 59,130)In previous estimates, the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study2 had identified a prevalence of 1.5/1000 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5 to 1.6/1000) among youth under the age of 20—lower than our estimate of 2.4/1000 for this age group. The National Survey of Children’s Health found 3.2/1000 (95% CI = 2.6 to 3.7/1000) of children under the age of 18 had diabetes, although diagnosis was based on self-report and included both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.1 Although type 1 diabetes mellitus may develop at any age,5 estimates of the prevalence or incidence in older adults are limited.6,7 By definition, our estimates missed cases starting after the age of 40, while including some younger people with type 2 diabetes who required insulin within a year of diagnosis. Using a higher age cutpoint for diabetes diagnosis in our study would likely result in an even greater misclassification of type 2 diabetes as type 1. When age of diagnosis was not included in the definition (ie, when we include everyone with diabetes who started taking insulin within 1 year of diagnosis), the prevalence was 5.7/1000, representing an upper bound of prevalence. Ideally, diabetes status should be determined based on data collected at or before diagnosis, particularly data on diabetes autoantibodies.8 Our prevalence estimates of type 1 diabetes mellitus in the entire civilian noninstitutionalized US population (2.6/1000 for definition 1 and 3.4/1000 for definition 2) are reasonable given current available data. However, the limitations of these data highlight the need for more comprehensive national data collection, both to fully understand the burden of diabetes and to plan healthcare response. Andy Menke Social & Scientific Systems, Inc Silver Spring, MD [email protected] Trevor J. Orchard Department of Epidemiology Graduate School of Public Health University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA Giuseppina Imperatore Kai McKeever Bullard Division of Diabetes Translation National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, GA Elizabeth Mayer-Davis Department of Nutrition University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC Catherine C. Cowie National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ede.0b013e31829ef01a

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the USA, type 1 diabetes mellitus prevalence using a stringent definition was 0.08% (95% CI 0.02-0.18) in those aged ≥60 years.

    “Using a more stringent definition of T1DM (previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus before age 30 years, currently taking insulin and starting insulin within 1 year of diagnosis), an analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data saw a significantly lower prevalence of 0.08% (95% CI 0.02–0.18) in those aged ≥60 years34.”

    From The epidemiology of type 1 diabetes mellitus in older adults (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The ‘To the Editor’ section describes the NHANES analysis and confirms the stringent definition: diagnosis before age 30, insulin started within one year, and current insulin use. It says prevalence was calculated by age, but the available passages do not give the 0.08% estimate or 95% CI for adults aged ≥60, nor establish that it was significantly lower; those parts cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [1]Lee JM Herman WH McPheeters ML Gurney JG An epidemiologic profile of children with diabetes in the U.S Diabetes Care 2006 29 420 421 16443899
  2. [2]Liese AD D’Agostino RB Jr Hamman RF The burden of diabetes mellitus among US youth: prevalence estimates from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study Pediatrics 2006 118 1510 1518 17015542
  3. [3]Klein R Knudtson MD Lee KE Gangnon R Klein BE The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy XXIII: the twenty-five-year incidence of macular edema in persons with type 1 diabetes Ophthalmology 2009 116 497 503 19167079 PMC2693093
  4. [5]Daneman D Type 1 diabetes Lancet 2006 367 847 858 16530579
  5. [6]Gorham ED Garland FC Barrett-Connor E Garland CF Wingard DL Pugh WM Incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in young adults: experience of 1,587,630 US Navy enlisted personnel Am J Epidemiol 1993 138 984 987 8256783
  6. [7]Melton LJ 3rd Palumbo PJ Chu CP Incidence of diabetes mellitus by clinical type Diabetes Care 1983 6 75 86 6839925
  7. [8]Dabelea D Pihoker C Talton JW SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Etiological approach to characterization of diabetes type: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study Diabetes Care 2011 34 1628 1633 21636800 PMC3120176

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Menke, A., Orchard, T. J., Imperatore, G., Bullard, K. M., Mayer-Davis, E., & Cowie, C. C.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
2013-09
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
773-774
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059681996
Cited by
144
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4
FWCI
4.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (CC999999)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (GS-10F-0381L)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, diabetes prevalence, insulin initiation, insulin use, NHANES, diabetes diagnosis, age at diagnosis, racial and ethnic differences, sex differences, temporal trends, United States population
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Black or African American, Child, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Health Surveys, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Infant, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Prevalence, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, White People, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review