Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Type 1.5/LADA Diabetes
What basis were u diagnosed as Lada rather than type 2?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kesun" data-source="post: 1212180" data-attributes="member: 39776"><p>It doesn't make sense to me that diagnosis is related to age. I think there's still a lot of hangover from the days when children were diagnosed with "juvenile" and adults with "adult-onset" diabetes, and these were then changed to "type 1" and "type 2". So there's a kind of folk memory among doctors that makes them relate diabetes type to age of onset. This would be ludicrous in most other diseases: if you get cancer then it's cancer, even if you're an OAP and it's a kind of cancer most prevalent among teenagers: nobody feels the need to come up with a special term such a "late onset juvenile cancer."</p><p></p><p>Yet all these age restrictions get imposed on diabetes. LADA is usually diagnosed if you are aged 25 or above at diagnosis. Why? If it's a separate type from T1, characterised by a longer honeymoon period, then this should be the diagnostic criterion, not your age. If it's the same as T1 in all but name, why not just call it T1 regardless of age?</p><p></p><p>This age criterion affects MODY too: even this website <a href="http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes_mody.html" target="_blank">http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes_mody.html</a> tells us that MODY "is a form of diabetes that develops before the patient reaches 25." Yet one kind of MODY, caused by an IPF1 gene mutation, has an average age of onset of 35. And since it's genetic, surely the gene mutation is present from birth, so why characterise the disease by reference to the maturity of those who have it? (To be fair, diabetologists now prefer "monogenic diabetes" as a term and discourage "MODY".)</p><p></p><p>I should add that I don't have MODY: there isn't an option on this board for "mitochondrial", so I picked MODY as being closest to what I do have!</p><p></p><p>Kate</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kesun, post: 1212180, member: 39776"] It doesn't make sense to me that diagnosis is related to age. I think there's still a lot of hangover from the days when children were diagnosed with "juvenile" and adults with "adult-onset" diabetes, and these were then changed to "type 1" and "type 2". So there's a kind of folk memory among doctors that makes them relate diabetes type to age of onset. This would be ludicrous in most other diseases: if you get cancer then it's cancer, even if you're an OAP and it's a kind of cancer most prevalent among teenagers: nobody feels the need to come up with a special term such a "late onset juvenile cancer." Yet all these age restrictions get imposed on diabetes. LADA is usually diagnosed if you are aged 25 or above at diagnosis. Why? If it's a separate type from T1, characterised by a longer honeymoon period, then this should be the diagnostic criterion, not your age. If it's the same as T1 in all but name, why not just call it T1 regardless of age? This age criterion affects MODY too: even this website [URL]http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes_mody.html[/URL] tells us that MODY "is a form of diabetes that develops before the patient reaches 25." Yet one kind of MODY, caused by an IPF1 gene mutation, has an average age of onset of 35. And since it's genetic, surely the gene mutation is present from birth, so why characterise the disease by reference to the maturity of those who have it? (To be fair, diabetologists now prefer "monogenic diabetes" as a term and discourage "MODY".) I should add that I don't have MODY: there isn't an option on this board for "mitochondrial", so I picked MODY as being closest to what I do have! Kate [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Type 1.5/LADA Diabetes
What basis were u diagnosed as Lada rather than type 2?
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…