This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Joey Rio. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
Well, many people argue that indeed it is and should be treated with anyone of the modalities, pharmacological and non-pharmacological, measures for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. Those in favour of prediabetes as a disease entity are known as glucocentric diabetologists, or let´s say “sugar doctors”, and have even conducted a Randomised Clinical Trial (The ORIGIN Study) utilizing the synthetic Insulin from Sanofi in more than 1.000 subjects with pre-diabetes.
Those who are against the definition of prediabetes as a disease entity argue that it is not true that this is a real disease entity, because we do not know for sure which person will indeed become diabetic (Fasting Plasma Glucose > 126 mg/dL or 2 hours Oral Glucose Tolerance Test > 200 mg/dL), Prediction of Risk Score Models are not yet externally validated and tend to overestimate the risk of type 2 diabetes, that the thresholds for the definition of diseases are becoming progressively lower over the years, that we would be giving drugs just to treat numbers instead of treating individuals with diseases (Overtreatments with potentials for, and real Harms), and finally, that there is no epidemiological evidence that Glycaemia levels in the range of so-called prediabetes has any cardiovascular consequences or risks. Those not in favour of treating with drugs, those with a fasting plasma glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dL are mostly known as Non-glucocentric diabetologists, or let´s say, just Non-Sugar doctors:
So, what do you think?