• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Lada, still relatively rare?

phoenix

Expert
Messages
5,671
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Pump
Reading the forums, it always seems as if more and more people are getting diagnosed with LADA but it may still be quite rare!

An ongoing s study is attempting to classify and monitor all new diabetes cases in Scania, Sweden The chart below represents the results as of 31 October 2013 when they had 8822 patients.

At diagnosis" blood samples are taken to determine presence of GAD-antibodies (usually present if type 1 diabetes) and measure C-peptide (a measure of own insulin production) and also for DNA-analysis."



This is the result. Not really very high for LADA but quite a large number of people classified as T2 with a relative insulin deficiency. (MODY comes in the secondary diabetes section)

The criteria used for diagnosis are as follows: ( I got this from another paper which has earlier results, They used the term light LADA rather than mild LADA and divided T1 into absolute and relative insulin deficiency. )

T1D: age at onset <35 years, C-peptide < 0.2nmol/L and GAD

antibodies >20 : T1D with relative insulin deficiency if C-peptide 0.2–0.6 nmol/L.

T2D: age at onset >35 years, C-peptide > 0.6 nmol/L, GAD antibodies <10;

T2D with relative insulin deficiency C-peptide 0.2–0.6 nmol/L.

LADA (latent autoimmune diabetes in adults): age at onset > 5 years, GAD antibodies >20;

LADA light (presumably 'Mild) if GAD antibodies 10–20.

http://andis.ludc.med.lu.se/all-new-diabetics-in-scania-andis/
 
5% of all cases? Isn't that quite a lot? When T1 is 8%?

But then T1 is more common in Sweden than in many other countries, possibly due to the high grain diet recommended for infants.

What the results show so far is that diabetes is far more complex than generally know.
 
It is relative. When I first started looking at LADA there was a thought that the majority of the 'thin type 2s' ie about 10% were actually LADA.Also, I've seen more people diagnosed with LADA in recent years.
I agree though it shows that it's clear that the classification of diabetes is not a straightforward T1,T2 ;we have high glucose as a symptom in common but varying reasons for it.
 
Of course it is a relative. That is what percent is about. My comment was on the fact that T1 is comparably more common in Sweden than in many other countries. Maybe also LADA is due to the autoimmune content? Or less common, comparably?

As a T2 who had to do some hard work to actually get diagnosed I think this kind of research is fab. I seem to fit into the 10% category with low insulin production as the rest of my family. If looked into closer I'm sure the T2 categories will be divided further.
 
Hi. I'm one of those 'T2s with insulin deficiency' and I define myself as T1.5 rather than LADA as my GAD was negative but had a low c-peptide. I took note of the comment by NICE in the latest T1 document that GAD tests become less reliable as you age after diagnosis so this is a factor in classification. My GAD was done 8 years after diagnosis so perhaps I would be a 'true' LADA if tested when first diagnosed? As we know, there are other known causes of late onset T1 such as virus attack which has the same result as GAD antibodies and I don't think this has been well researched? I don't like the term T2 being associated with insulin deficiency as the condition is nearer to T1 than T2 which in the majority of cases is where there is excess insulin present due to insulin resistance and the treatment regime is different. Why in your references is age 35 used as a demarcation between the T1D and T2D classifcation? Any idea why 35 years is a magic number; seems arbitrary to me and possibly irrelevant?
 
Re older type 1s Sorry Daibell , that was me not them. The other paper where I got the categories from was from 2013 and slightly more complex, they did also have a section in the chart (though not in the legend which I copied) for T1 diagnosed at over 35.(1.3%), .In this later incarnation of the chart they have lumped all T1 together .

As to why they label people with insulin deficiency but no GAD antibodies as T2 , then you'd have to contact them. However, I suspect it is because that is the spectrum that is covered by the T2 umbrella as presently defined. It is a diagnosis of exclusion. If it's not autoimmune, not requiring insulin for survival, not DKA prone, not one of the 'other types' then it fits into the Type 2 band.
It's exactly research of this type that may be useful for separating 'other types' off from this huge umbrella.

Here are the (longish) definitions from the 1999 WHO committee which show just how big the T2 group is. In that section, I've bolded a few phrases which seem important to this .
In the type 1 section labelled idiopathic, those that are intermittently ketosis prone (often of African or Asian origin as mentioned) are now often labelled ketosis prone T2. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2154252-overview#a3

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the reply; interesting. This business of putting people into T2 by default is understandable but doesn't help research statistics. I find the c-peptide categorisation interesting as well. I had mine done privately and it came out at 1.19 ug/l with a 'range' of 1.1 to 4.4. This implied that I was low but not very. Despite this I was going into the 20s mmol fairly often despite the complete set of tablets on max dose and my HBa1C also went up to 8.5% before starting insulin. I was also holding my carbs down to around 100gm/day. I would expect my blood sugar to go into the 30s if I stopped my insulin and possibly go into DKA? So, I wonder how valid these c-peptide categorisations are? The implication is that I am a T2D which I would challenge. So a lot more research is needed and whilist many are just lumped into 'T2' the opportunity is lost?
 
Would you develop DKA? If there is sufficient insulin then glucose can become very high with no ketones. It's not a switch but a continuous process, too high a level of ketones and the blood becomes too acidic. I had 'mild' DKA on diagnosis with fasting glucose in the 20s and had certainly been burning fat and muscle for some time previously due to ketosis. We do read on the forums though of people developing DKA at levels below the 20s . Occasionally it even happens at 'normal' levels. Some people, particularly young people develop DKA in hours without insulin. Personally, I suspect I still have enough insulin of my own to stop that happening, it would probably take very much longer without insulin but who knows? (I'm not experimenting to find out but the few times when I've had canula problems and levels in the high teens I haven't had ketones. )

I agree that the blanket T2 diagnosis is unsatisfactory, more importantly so do experienced consultants http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(12)62207-7.pdf I've linked to this one before, theres a video as well as the paper but you may not have seen it.
The reason I think that the type of research above will be useful is that it includes everyone who is diagnosed.It will be interesting to see if there are common genetic risk factors in the group of insulin deficient T2s and if they are different to the genes that predispose to T1 or indeed insulin resistant type 2 (for want of a better label).
 

Rather than the high grain diet, it may be vitamin D deficiency that is the reason for the higher T1 incidence in Sweden?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166406/
 
Rather than the high grain diet, it may be vitamin D deficiency that is the reason for the higher T1 incidence in Sweden?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166406/
Possibly. I don't think it can explain the huge difference though and the rising numbers of children with T1. In Finland, with the highest T1 rate in the world, it seems to be levelling off since they changed the recommendations for vitamin D supplements in children. On the other hand the UK isn't know for it's high vitamin D levels and the incidence rate for T1 in children is about half of Sweden's.
 
There several possible environmental potential triggers, low Vitamin D is one but it might not account for high rates in some parts of the world.
Sardinia has a T1 rate second only to that in Finland (and 5-7 times the rest of Italy) . The third highest national rate, after Finland and Sweden is now Saudi Arabia. The "DAISY study showed that neither vitamin D intake nor circulating 25(OH)D concentrations throughout childhood were associated with increased risk of β-cell autoimmunity or progression to T1D"
Why is it that many people have the genetic predisposition for type 1 (certain variations in the genes that control the immune system) but only a proportion develop it.?
 
Sweden also has a much smaller population than the UK so it is more likely that people will share genes. Also if Type 1 is genetic with a viral trigger, a small population concentrated in cities would facilitate that.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…