[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes in Children and AdolescentsUS Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

To identify the key insights or developments described in this article
1 Credit CME
Abstract

Importance  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 210 000 children and adolescents younger than 20 years had diabetes as of 2018; of these, approximately 23 000 had type 2 diabetes. Youth with type 2 diabetes have an increased prevalence of associated chronic comorbid conditions, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Data indicate that the incidence of type 2 diabetes is rising; from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015, incidence increased from 9.0 cases per 100 000 children and adolescents to 13.8 cases per 100 000 children and adolescents.

Objective  The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant persons younger than 18 years. This is a new recommendation.

Population  Children and adolescents younger than 18 years without known diabetes or prediabetes or symptoms of diabetes or prediabetes.

Evidence Assessment  The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. There is a lack of evidence on the effect of screening for, and early detection and treatment of, type 2 diabetes on health outcomes in youth, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.

Recommendation  The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. (I statement)

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 10940 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 700, Los Angeles, CA 90024 (chair@uspstf.net).

Accepted for Publication: August 9, 2022.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH; Michael J. Barry, MD; Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA; Michael Cabana, MD, MA, MPH; David Chelmow, MD; Tumaini Rucker Coker, MD, MBA; Karina W. Davidson, PhD, MASc; Esa M. Davis, MD, MPH; Katrina E. Donahue, MD, MPH; Carlos Roberto Jaén, MD, PhD, MS; Martha Kubik, PhD, RN; Li Li, MD, PhD, MPH; Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH; Lori Pbert, PhD; John M. Ruiz, PhD; James Stevermer, MD, MSPH; Chien-Wen Tseng, MD, MPH, MSEE; John B. Wong, MD.

Affiliations of The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: University of California, Los Angeles (Mangione); Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Barry); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Nicholson, Donahue); Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York (Cabana); Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (Chelmow); University of Washington, Seattle (Coker); Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York (Davidson); University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Davis); The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio (Jaén); George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia (Kubik); University of Virginia, Charlottesville (Li); New York University, New York, New York (Ogedegbe); University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (Pbert); University of Arizona, Tucson (Ruiz); University of Missouri, Columbia (Stevermer); University of Hawaii, Honolulu (Tseng); Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts (Wong).

Author Contributions: Dr Mangione had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The USPSTF members contributed equally to the recommendation statement.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Authors followed the policy regarding conflicts of interest described at https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/conflict-of-interest-disclosures. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings.

Funding/Support: The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The US Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) support the operations of the USPSTF.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: AHRQ staff assisted in the following: development and review of the research plan, commission of the systematic evidence review from an Evidence-based Practice Center, coordination of expert review and public comment of the draft evidence report and draft recommendation statement, and the writing and preparation of the final recommendation statement and its submission for publication. AHRQ staff had no role in the approval of the final recommendation statement or the decision to submit for publication.

Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the US government. They should not be construed as an official position of AHRQ or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Additional Contributions: We thank Justin Mills, MD, MPH (AHRQ), who contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and Lisa Nicolella, MA (AHRQ), who assisted with coordination and editing.

Additional Information: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about the effectiveness of specific preventive care services for patients without obvious related signs or symptoms. It bases its recommendations on the evidence of both the benefits and harms of the service and an assessment of the balance. The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment. The USPSTF recognizes that clinical decisions involve more considerations than evidence alone. Clinicians should understand the evidence but individualize decision-making to the specific patient or situation. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms. Published by JAMA®—Journal of the American Medical Association under arrangement with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). ©2022 AMA and United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), by assignment from the members of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). All rights reserved.

References
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report. January 18, 2022. Accessed June 29, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html
2.
Jonas  D , Vander Schaff  E , Riley  S .  Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Children and Adolescents: An Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 216. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2022. AHRQ publication 21-05288-EF-1.
3.
Divers  J , Mayer-Davis  EJ , Lawrence  JM ,  et al.  Trends in incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among youths—selected counties and Indian reservations, United States, 2002-2015.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(6):161-165. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Andes  LJ , Cheng  YJ , Rolka  DB ,  et al.  Prevalence of prediabetes among adolescents and young adults in the United States, 2005-2016.   JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(2):e194498. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4498PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
US Preventive Services Task Force. US Preventive Services Task Force Procedure Manual. Updated May 2021. Accessed June 29, 2022. https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/methods-and-processes/procedure-manual
6.
American Diabetes Association.  Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2020.   Diabetes Care. 2020;43(suppl 1):S14-S31. doi:10.2337/dc20-S002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Jonas  DE , Vander Schaaf  EB , Riley  S ,  et al.  Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. Published September 13, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7957Google Scholar
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevent type 2 diabetes in kids. August 10, 2021. Accessed June 29, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevent-type-2/type-2-kids.html
9.
American Diabetes Association.  Children and adolescents: standards of medical care in diabetes—2020.   Diabetes Care. 2020;43(suppl 1):S163-S182. doi:10.2337/dc20-S013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Zeitler  P , Hirst  K , Pyle  L ,  et al; TODAY Study Group.  A clinical trial to maintain glycemic control in youth with type 2 diabetes.   N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2247-2256. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1109333PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
American Diabetes Association.  Prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2020.   Diabetes Care. 2020;43(suppl 1):S32-S36. doi:10.2337/dc20-S003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Dabelea  D , Mayer-Davis  EJ , Saydah  S ,  et al; SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study.  Prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents from 2001 to 2009.   JAMA. 2014;311(17):1778-1786. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.3201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Arslanian  S , Bacha  F , Grey  M , Marcus  MD , White  NH , Zeitler  P .  Evaluation and management of youth-onset type 2 diabetes: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association.   Diabetes Care. 2018;41(12):2648-2668. doi:10.2337/dci18-0052PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hannon  TS , Dugan  TM , Saha  CK ,  et al.  Effectiveness of computer automation for the diagnosis and management of childhood type 2 diabetes.   JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):327-334. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4207PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
DuBose  KD , Cummings  DM , Imai  S , Lazorick  S , Collier  DN .  Development and validation of a tool for assessing glucose impairment in adolescents.   Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E104. doi:10.5888/pcd9.110213PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Pinhas-Hamiel  O , Dolan  LM , Daniels  SR ,  et al.  Increased incidence of non–insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus among adolescents.   J Pediatr. 1996;128(5, pt 1):608-615. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(96)80124-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Ball  GD , Huang  TT , Gower  BA ,  et al.  Longitudinal changes in insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion, and beta-cell function during puberty.   J Pediatr. 2006;148(1):16-22. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.08.059PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Amiel  SA , Sherwin  RS , Simonson  DC ,  et al.  Impaired insulin action in puberty: a contributing factor to poor glycemic control in adolescents with diabetes.   N Engl J Med. 1986;315(4):215-219. doi:10.1056/NEJM198607243150402PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for obesity in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;317(23):2417-2426. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.6803PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(8):736-743. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.12531PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for gestational diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(6):531-538. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.11922PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Jones  KL , Arslanian  S , Peterokova  VA ,  et al.  Effect of metformin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.   Diabetes Care. 2002;25(1):89-94. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Savoye  M , Caprio  S , Dziura  J ,  et al.  Reversal of early abnormalities in glucose metabolism in obese youth: results of an intensive lifestyle randomized controlled trial.   Diabetes Care. 2014;37(2):317-324. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close