I've been diabetic for about 12 years. Started on medication but very quickly that failed to keep things under control so I ended up on insulin. Like some of you I had a negative GAD test and very low C-peptide. My consultant said I was an "odd" case and that as my symptons resembled a type 1 they would keep me on their books and so they've looked after me very well ever since.
A great team at the Royal Surrey hospital.
T1 - LADA - T2 .....I've no idea, but very happy with my treatment.
I know what you mean about the occasional sweet stuff not seeming to have any effect, even when I indulged in some jellies one evening having felt frustrated they didn't do anything to my blood sugar.
What I have noticed is that my fasting blood sugar in the morning has crept up just a little as where it was consistently high 4's before Christmas each week since it has nudged up a tiny bit and is now averaging in the high 6s with an occasional erratic plunge down to a low 5. Still within the accepted range and so just watching how this plays out for now.
Good luck with that follow up hba1c
Hi. The medical guys often forget that there is more than GAD that can damage the pancreas. There are other, rarer, antibodies such as IA2 etc, that don't always get tested for. There can be pancreatitis, viruses and so on. Also, as NICE has said in it's latest guidelines, the GAD test becomes less reliable as time progresses after first diagnosis. I've been thru the same route as you and still listed as T2. I think this is wrong. Yes, the LADA acronym covers anti-body damage but if that is T1 then so is anything else that has damaged the pancreas. I refer to myself as an insulin dependent diabetic not T2 and if asked will say I'm a Late onset T1 or T1.5. I've always been slim with a low c-peptide and don't believe my pancreas was damaged thru high and long-term insulin resistance (to some extent a possible myth?). I think the medics remain very confused in this area and Diabetes UK doesn't help with this either.My experience is I've had both the GAD and c-peptide tests done a few times each. The first couple showed them I was type 2. The third one and the last one I had in 2010 showed I had no antibodies present (GAD was negative) but I the c-peptide came back in the red showing I wasn't hardly producing any insulin. My endocrinologist explained to me that I was still type 2, but just had to now be on insulin to treat my diabetes. So if anyone asks me I just say I'm a type 2 insulin dependant diabetic. A lot of people still can't grasp that in their heads though and make out I have to be some other type as apparently type 2's can only be on diet and pills to control their sugar. My understanding is to have type 1.5 you would need to have antibodies too... they just show up later than they would for type 1's.
Hi. The medical guys often forget that there is more than GAD that can damage the pancreas. There are other, rarer, antibodies such as IA2 etc, that don't always get tested for. There can be pancreatitis, viruses and so on. Also, as NICE has said in it's latest guidelines, the GAD test becomes less reliable as time progresses after first diagnosis. I've been thru the same route as you and still listed as T2. I think this is wrong. Yes, the LADA acronym covers anti-body damage but if that is T1 then so is anything else that has damaged the pancreas. I refer to myself as an insulin dependent diabetic not T2 and if asked will say I'm a Late onset T1 or T1.5. I've always been slim with a low c-peptide and don't believe my pancreas was damaged thru high and long-term insulin resistance (to some extent a possible myth?). I think the medics remain very confused in this area and Diabetes UK doesn't help with this either.