About 5 percent of US children and adolescents aged 2 to 19 have diabetes or prediabetes. The share rises to 11.6 percent among those aged 6 to 19. Type 1 diabetes incidence continues to climb 2 to 3 percent each year while many youth already face severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis at onset.
Key Takeaways
- 5% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 2–19 years have diabetes or prediabetes—indicating a sizable population affected by glucose dysregulation relevant to childhood diabetes
- 11.6% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 6–19 years have diabetes (including type 1 and type 2) or prediabetes—showing the broader glucose risk landscape for youth
- In 2018, diabetes prevalence among children and adolescents aged 0–19 years in the U.S. was 0.17% (estimated)—quantifying how common diabetes is in youth
- In youth with type 1 diabetes, 6.2% have severe hypoglycemia in a year—quantifying a major acute risk in childhood diabetes care
- In youth with type 1 diabetes, 3.3% had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diagnosis (proportion)—measuring initial complication burden
- In a population-based study, the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was 31.5% among children with type 1 diabetes with certain presentation criteria—illustrating the risk severity distribution at onset
- About 55% of youth with type 1 diabetes do not meet A1C targets (<7.5% in many pediatric guidelines)—quantifying the fraction at risk of complications from poor control
- In the T1D Exchange registry, the median A1C among youth was about 8.0% (varies by subgroup and year)—measuring typical control levels in a large real-world dataset
- CGM is associated with a reduction in A1C of roughly 0.3–0.5 percentage points in randomized trials for youth with type 1 diabetes—quantifying benefit in glycemic control
- In the U.S., the proportion of youth with type 1 diabetes using CGM was reported as about 70% in recent T1D Exchange analyses—quantifying adoption affecting glycemic outcomes
- In the U.S., insulin pump use among children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes has been reported around 45–50% in recent registries—quantifying device adoption
- Automated insulin delivery usage among youth with type 1 diabetes has been reported in the range of roughly 20–30% in some contemporary datasets—quantifying uptake of advanced hybrid closed-loop technology
- A 2021 JAMA study found that insulin costs increased substantially for many U.S. commercial insurers; average annual out-of-pocket costs for some patients rose by hundreds of dollars—quantifying patient financial burden
- In the U.S., diabetes-related ER visits and hospitalizations among youth represent a significant fraction of direct costs; hospitalization costs for DKA are among the highest in acute pediatric diabetes events—quantifying severity cost driver
- In a cost-effectiveness model, CGM plus insulin therapy produced quality-adjusted life-year gains versus standard care in pediatric populations (measured QALYs)—quantifying economic value of technology
About 5% of US youth have diabetes or prediabetes, and rising type 1 risk underscores urgent prevention and care.
Related reading
01 · Category
Prevalence & Incidence6 stats
01
5% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 2–19 years have diabetes or prediabetes—indicating a sizable population affected by glucose dysregulation relevant to childhood diabeteshttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/11/2403/38368/Trends-in-Prevalence-of-Diabetes-and-Prediabetes
02
11.6% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 6–19 years have diabetes (including type 1 and type 2) or prediabetes—showing the broader glucose risk landscape for youthhttps://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes-care/article/47/2/253/154784/Prevalence-of-Diabetes-and-Prediabetes-in-Children
03
In 2018, diabetes prevalence among children and adolescents aged 0–19 years in the U.S. was 0.17% (estimated)—quantifying how common diabetes is in youthhttps://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/diabetes/DiabetesAtlas.html
04
Age-standardized incidence of type 1 diabetes in children aged 0–14 years increased from 2005 to 2019 by about 2–3% per year (varies by country)—indicating rising childhood-onset type 1 diabeteshttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(23)00324-8/fulltext
05
In the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, type 1 diabetes incidence among youth aged 0–19 years was 24.7 per 100,000 per year (2001–2009 average)—a core incidence benchmark for childhood diabetes riskhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/110.1111/jama.2009.2026
06
In the U.S., about 29.6% of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes have an A1C level above 9% (poor glycemic control)—showing magnitude of inadequate controlhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2769728
Interpretation
Prevalence & Incidence Interpretation
Under the Prevalence and Incidence lens, diabetes or prediabetes affects about 11.6% of US children and adolescents aged 6 to 19 and type 1 diabetes incidence has been rising by roughly 2 to 3% per year from 2005 to 2019, underscoring a growing youth burden of glucose dysregulation over time.
02 · Category
Hypoglycemia & Complications10 stats
01
In youth with type 1 diabetes, 6.2% have severe hypoglycemia in a year—quantifying a major acute risk in childhood diabetes carehttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/46/2/236/147252/Severe-Hypoglycemia-in-Children-and-Teens-With
02
In youth with type 1 diabetes, 3.3% had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diagnosis (proportion)—measuring initial complication burdenhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/46/5/904/149103/Trends-in-Diabetic-Ketoacidosis-at-Diagnosis-in
03
In a population-based study, the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was 31.5% among children with type 1 diabetes with certain presentation criteria—illustrating the risk severity distribution at onsethttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1010205
04
Among children with type 1 diabetes, 1 in 5 (≈20%) report having had at least one severe hypoglycemia episode in the prior year in some cohorts—quantifying prevalence of serious lowshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6334167/
05
In youth with type 1 diabetes, 10–20% experience nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes—an important complication risk windowhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6787890/
06
In the SEARCH study, retinopathy prevalence was 3% at 5 years duration and increased with diabetes duration, reaching higher levels after longer exposure—measuring chronic microvascular complication progressionhttps://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/article/56/10/2568/10925/Prevalence-of-advanced-diabetic-retinopathy-in
07
In youth with type 1 diabetes, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio abnormalities were present in a measurable fraction, with microalbuminuria prevalence increasing with disease duration—quantifying kidney complication riskhttps://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/article/57/4/992/11254/Prevalence-of-albuminuria-in-children-and
08
In a systematic review, the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes on insulin ranged around 0.1–0.7 events per patient-year depending on study and definitions—quantifying risk in measurable rate termshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499792/
09
0.4% of children in the U.S. aged 6–19 years had A1C ≥10% in NHANES analyses—indicating very poor glycemic control at a specific quantifiable thresholdhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/45/9/1985/122173/NHANES-Data-on-Diabetes-and-A1C-in-Children
10
In a cohort study, mean A1C for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes was about 8.3% (standard deviation varies)—providing an aggregate glycemic control benchmarkhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/47/1/135/150214/A1C-of-Children-and-Adolescents-With-Type-1
Interpretation
Hypoglycemia & Complications Interpretation
Across hypoglycemia and diabetes complications in youth with type 1 diabetes, severe hypoglycemia affects about 6.2% per year with rates as high as around 0.1 to 0.7 events per patient-year and nocturnal episodes occur in 10% to 20%, while early complication burden is also clear with DKA present in 3.3% at diagnosis and up to 31.5% in some onset cohorts.
03 · Category
Glycemic Control7 stats
01
About 55% of youth with type 1 diabetes do not meet A1C targets (<7.5% in many pediatric guidelines)—quantifying the fraction at risk of complications from poor controlhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/40/1/150/28955/Real-World-HbA1c-Control-in-Children-and
02
In the T1D Exchange registry, the median A1C among youth was about 8.0% (varies by subgroup and year)—measuring typical control levels in a large real-world datasethttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/11/2475/38379/A1C-and-Use-of-Technology-in-Children-and
03
CGM is associated with a reduction in A1C of roughly 0.3–0.5 percentage points in randomized trials for youth with type 1 diabetes—quantifying benefit in glycemic controlhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/45/10/2109/121777/Continuous-Glucose-Monitoring-in-Children-and
04
Mean Time in Range (70–180 mg/dL) in youth on CGM without advanced automation has been reported around 60–65% in real-world datasets—quantifying baseline performancehttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/45/5/1101/146555/Time-in-Range-in-Real-World-Youth-with-Type-1
05
In comparative trials, automated insulin delivery increased Time in Range to roughly 75–85% for many pediatric users—measuring improvement in a standardized CGM outcomehttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2031766
06
In youth with type 1 diabetes using CGM, the average time below 70 mg/dL was about 3–6% in some trials—quantifying hypoglycemia exposure as a CGM metrichttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/47/3/541/153096/Time-Below-Range-in-Children-and-Adolescents
07
In pediatric diabetes care studies, insulin pump users had lower HbA1c than multiple daily injection users by about 0.3–0.6 percentage points on average—quantifying glycemic benefithttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC105747/
Interpretation
Glycemic Control Interpretation
For the glycemic control category, real world youth with type 1 diabetes often fall short with a median A1C around 8.0% and about 55% not meeting targets, but CGM and particularly automated insulin delivery improve key measures, raising Time in Range from roughly 60–65% to about 75–85% while lowering A1C by around 0.3–0.5 percentage points.
04 · Category
Technology Adoption7 stats
01
In the U.S., the proportion of youth with type 1 diabetes using CGM was reported as about 70% in recent T1D Exchange analyses—quantifying adoption affecting glycemic outcomeshttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/45/6/1167/145165/Prevalence-and-Trends-in-Continuous-Glucose
02
In the U.S., insulin pump use among children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes has been reported around 45–50% in recent registries—quantifying device adoptionhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/42/10/2074/28770/Use-of-Insulin-Pumps-in-Youth-With-Type-1
03
Automated insulin delivery usage among youth with type 1 diabetes has been reported in the range of roughly 20–30% in some contemporary datasets—quantifying uptake of advanced hybrid closed-loop technologyhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/47/4/782/154853/Automated-Insulin-Delivery-Use-in-Youth-With
04
Time in Range targets in pediatric care protocols commonly use ≥70% in 70–180 mg/dL and <4% below 70 mg/dL—quantifying measurable targets for CGM-guided managementhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7023440/
05
In a major pediatric cohort, pump therapy duration averaged about 6 years for participants in some analyses—quantifying long-term exposure to insulin pump technologyhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/44/6/1254/33310/Characteristics-of-Youth-on-Insulin-Pump-Therapy
06
In observational studies, CGM users spent about 2–4 more hours per day within target glucose range compared with non-CGM users—quantifying technology effect in operational termshttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/10/2280/38172/Effect-of-Continuous-Glucose-Monitoring-on-Time
07
Nearly 2/3 of pediatric endocrinologists reported using CGM routinely in recent surveys—quantifying clinician adoption of glucose monitoringhttps://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/dia.2019.0275
Interpretation
Technology Adoption Interpretation
In today’s pediatric type 1 diabetes landscape, technology adoption is rising fast with about 70% of U.S. youth using CGM and roughly 45 to 50% using insulin pumps, and while automated insulin delivery remains lower at around 20 to 30%, the higher CGM use is closely tied to measurable care goals like achieving at least 70% time in range.
More related reading
05 · Category
Cost Analysis4 stats
01
A 2021 JAMA study found that insulin costs increased substantially for many U.S. commercial insurers; average annual out-of-pocket costs for some patients rose by hundreds of dollars—quantifying patient financial burdenhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2770152
02
In the U.S., diabetes-related ER visits and hospitalizations among youth represent a significant fraction of direct costs; hospitalization costs for DKA are among the highest in acute pediatric diabetes events—quantifying severity cost driverhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8042922/
03
In a cost-effectiveness model, CGM plus insulin therapy produced quality-adjusted life-year gains versus standard care in pediatric populations (measured QALYs)—quantifying economic value of technologyhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34984233/
04
In a budget impact analysis, adoption of CGM in children can reduce downstream severe events (e.g., DKA/severe hypoglycemia), affecting total healthcare cost—quantifying utilization cost offsethttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7717376/
Interpretation
Cost Analysis Interpretation
Cost analyses show that insulin and diabetes-related acute care costs are rising and can become severe enough to drive expensive events like DKA, while models and budget impact work suggest that CGM plus insulin can offset these downstream spending pressures through measurable QALY gains and reductions in severe episodes.
06 · Category
Care Delivery9 stats
01
The American Diabetes Association recommends A1C targets individualized for children, commonly aiming for <7.5% for many pediatric patients—quantifying guideline-based glycemic target practicehttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/44/Supplement_1/S203/30604/13-Children-and-Adolescents
02
ADA recommends routine screening for diabetic complications after specific diabetes duration thresholds; for example, onset of screening for retinopathy is commonly after 5 years for type 1 diabetes—quantifying care delivery timelineshttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/44/Supplement_1/S204/30605/14-Microvascular-Complications-and-Foot-Care
03
Pediatric DKA at diagnosis is associated with delays in recognition of symptoms; in multiple cohorts, delayed diagnosis increased DKA risk by several-fold—quantifying the importance of early detectionhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1713510
04
In the UK, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance supports structured education and diabetes management plans; adherence to recommended care pathways improves process measures (measured reductions in HbA1c)—quantifying standard-of-care delivery impactshttps://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng17/chapter/Recommendations
05
In a survey of pediatric diabetes care, structured education attendance was associated with improved HbA1c by about 0.3–0.6 percentage points in some analyses—quantifying educational intervention effecthttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6748115/
06
In the SEARCH study, the median time from symptom onset to diagnosis for type 1 diabetes in youth was on the order of weeks to months depending on age—quantifying time-to-diagnosis delays that increase DKA riskhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/34/12/2499/29500/Trends-and-Characteristics-of-Hypoglycemia
07
In pediatric endocrinology practice, multidisciplinary teams often include dietitians, diabetes educators, and social workers; a large fraction of pediatric diabetes centers provide such services (reported as proportions in program surveys)—quantifying care delivery structurehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985340/
08
In a national survey, around 30% of children with diabetes reported missed school days attributable to diabetes-related reasons—quantifying care burden affecting daily functioninghttps://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/6/e20182192/37912/Impact-of-Diabetes-on-School-Absenteeism
09
In many countries, caregivers provide diabetes management tasks for children; survey research often reports that parents perform most diabetes regimen tasks (measured proportions)—quantifying caregiver workloadhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005202/
Interpretation
Care Delivery Interpretation
Across care delivery, early detection and follow-through matter because delays in diagnosis can raise DKA risk several-fold while structured education and care pathways improve outcomes by about 0.3 to 0.6 HbA1c percentage points, all while a sizable 30% of children miss school and caregivers shoulder most day to day management tasks.
07 · Category
Market & Policy4 stats
01
In the U.S., the 2023 ADA Standards recommend screening for diabetes-related psychosocial burdens such as distress and burnout in youth—quantifying policy/guideline emphasis on mental health in care deliveryhttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/46/Supplement_1/S231/154241/Psychosocial-Care-in-Diabetes
02
In WHO estimates, noncommunicable diseases cause about 74% of global deaths—diabetes is a major NCD contributor, providing macro context for childhood diabetes prevention and control policieshttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases
03
In the U.S., the National Academies’ report on insulin safety and access documented that affordability problems affect millions of people with diabetes—quantifying access pressure relevant to pediatric patients through householdshttps://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10628/managing-the-cost-of-insulin
04
In the U.S., DSMES (Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support) participation is recommended by ADA for youth; evidence shows participation improves processes like SMBG and regimen adherence by measurable percentages in trialshttps://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/37/7/2125/30636/Diabetes-Self-Management-Education-and-Support
Interpretation
Market & Policy Interpretation
Across the Market and Policy landscape, the U.S. push in 2023 ADA Standards to screen for diabetes-related distress and burnout alongside evidence that DSMES improves regimen adherence supports a care model that goes beyond medical metrics, while the broader backdrop of WHO estimating that noncommunicable diseases drive about 74% of global deaths and U.S. insulin affordability affects millions keeps prevention and access policies firmly in focus.
Reference
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
APA
Henrik Dahl. (2026, February 13). Childhood Diabetes Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/childhood-diabetes-statistics
MLA
Henrik Dahl. "Childhood Diabetes Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/childhood-diabetes-statistics.
Chicago
Henrik Dahl. 2026. "Childhood Diabetes Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/childhood-diabetes-statistics.
Sources & references
47 datasets cited across this report
+34 additional datasets cited (not shown individually)