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

Type 1½ but GAD negative

Sobeit

Sobeit

Well-Known Member
Messages
228
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
I'm feeling frustrated and very fed up being in Limbo! I would really like to know which type I am . I'm not sure really why my dsn thinks I'm type 1½. My GAD has been proven to be negative so there is no proof.Are there certain elements to type 1½ ? Like is there anything in particular symptom wise or blood sugar rise and fall wise to differentiate type 1½ from type 2? Thanks
 
As far as I know '(and that isn't very much) LADA or 1.5 will eventually have to go onto insulin.
Negative GAD doesn't say anything at all. You haven't had islet antibodies tested? Or C-peptide?
 
Totto said:
As far as I know '(and that isn't very much) LADA or 1.5 will eventually have to go onto insulin.
Negative GAD doesn't say anything at all. You haven't had islet antibodies tested? Or C-peptide?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply.No c peptide test.Am on insulin but still producing some!
 
Hi there,

I was tested for islet antibodies which came out negative.

Am currently being tested further for LADA, so I feel your pain :)

My endocrinologist is convinced that I'm LADA. According to her, even if all the tests come back negative it still doesn't mean that I'm definitely type 2. When she reviewed My food journals and bg logs, it doesn't appear that I eat enough carbs to justify my high bg levels.

I've had some success with Metformin, but find that my fasting sugars are consistently higher than they should be. My doctor had suggested that maybe I could continue with taking Metformin, but add a bit of insulin before meals and before bed.

On the flip side, my sister in law is type 1, diagnosed from childhood. She has recently been put on Metformin in addition to insulin and invocana. This was really surprising for me to hear. She was saying that her doctor had mentioned to her that they are seeing a lot of type 1's who later in adulthood develop type 2 'tendencies'.
 
I was diagnosed with LADA in Nov and I had GAD antibodies which confirmed my diagnosis straight away. Presence of these antibodies do suggest type 1 ( or LADA in my case).
 
I'm not sure if it takes some time for the antibodies to appear with LADA? I thought that is the case... so maybe you just need to get regular GAD tests done? Then maybe you're like me too? I've had both the GAD and the c-peptide tests done a couple of times. The last time they were done was 2010 and my GAD test came back negative, but my c-peptide test came back in the red which means I have beta cell damage and no longer producing sufficient insulin. My endocrinologist said I'm still definitely type 2, but now need to be on full time insulin therapy. He took me off oral meds and said they would be useless on me because of the c-peptide test result.
 
The essential thing about LADA is that it is, like T1, autoimmune. Beyond that it isn't that well defined and studied . (and as studies often use slightly different definitions they can't all be compared)
This article from a US professional journal is reasonably comprehensive and has some charts of characterististics http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0401/p843.html

Beyond that type 1.5 doesn't really mean the same thing to all people.

Sometimes MODY is called 1.5. That is a group of diabetic types caused by a single change in DNA (so is normally associated with a family history) http://www.diabetesgenes.org/content/maturity-onset-diabetes-young

And then T2 doesn't have a clear definition either. It's all those people who don't fit into the other boxes. Most undoubtedly are overweight at diagnosis but not all.
You only have to read on here that there are a number of people who aren't and it's not clear why. Here's what I think could be possible reasons (from reading )
They could be insulin resistant: overfull fat cells will occur at a lower weight in people who have few or small numbers of fat cells.
Their beta cells aren't producing enough insulin (but no autoimmune attack killing off beta cells)
The signal to produce insulin may not work well .
The body doesn't respond to rising glucose levels at the normal level
All are possible reasons for higher glucose levels but can't necessarily be tested They will end up being called T2 because there is no other box at present to stick them in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
phoenix said:
And then T2 doesn't have a clear definition either. It's all those people who don't fit into the other boxes. Most undoubtedly are overweight at diagnosis but not all.
You only have to read on here that there are a number of people who aren't and it's not clear why. Here's what I think could be possible reasons (from reading )
They could be insulin resistant: overfull fat cells will occur at a lower weight in people who have few or small numbers of fat cells.
Their beta cells aren't producing enough insulin (but no autoimmune attack killing off beta cells)
The signal to produce insulin may not work well .
The body doesn't respond to rising glucose levels at the normal level
All are possible reasons for higher glucose levels but can't necessarily be tested They will end up being called T2 because there is no other box at present to stick them in.
Click to expand...

yeh I was diagnosed and told the reason I had what was then called mature onset diabetes was because I have another hormone condition, polycystic ovarian syndrome which predisposes me to diabetes and insulin resistance. Well I was told too I had what they call metabolic syndrome which includes diabetes and hypertension. It was unusual for anyone under 40 to be diagnosed with type 2 I was told (I was 25) On top of that I also have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. At the time I was diagnosed I had a urinary tract infection which is what prompted them to check my sugar. So I could've had diabetes a lot longer as I remember having cravings for sugar when I was younger.
 
Back
Top