UK study finds 40% of Diabetics Misdiagnosed Type1 / Type 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amity Island

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Apparently, diabetes is hard to diagnose?

A UK-based study that took into account the experiences of 583 individuals discovered that almost 40 per cent of people provided with a treatment of type 2 diabetes when they were instead suffering from type 1. Misdiagnosis could prove detrimental to an individual’s health and result in diabetic ketoacidosis.

 
Amity Island said:
But why is this happening? Is it so difficult to diagnose?
Click to expand...
Most of the people on this forum (and there are quite a few of us) who were misdiagnosed, are over 40.
Adults tend to get a slower onset of Type 1 than children or adolescents, and couple that with the fact that Doctors training doesn’t seem to include the fact that Type 1 can appear at any age (maybe not surprising, considering how many Type 2s a doctor will see in the average year, and how few Type 1s) you've got a perfect recipe if not for misdiagnosis, at least a 'wait and see' attitude.
Also bear in mind that not all Type 1s produce GAD antibodies, but some Type 2s do, and the C-peptide test used to be more expensive to do than I believe it is now, and results can be inconclusive.
 
Robin said:
Most of the people on this forum (and there are quite a few of us) who were misdiagnosed, are over 40.
Adults tend to get a slower onset of Type 1 than children or adolescents, and couple that with the fact that Doctors training doesn’t seem to include the fact that Type 1 can appear at any age (maybe not surprising, considering how many Type 2s a doctor will see in the average year, and how few Type 1s) you've got a perfect recipe if not for misdiagnosis, at least a 'wait and see' attitude.
Also bear in mind that not all Type 1s produce GAD antibodies, but some Type 2s do, and the C-peptide test used to be more expensive to do than I believe it is now, and results can be inconclusive.
Click to expand...
Thanks Robin
 
Yes unfortunately I think a lot of GPs think that if you are over the age of about 20 then you must be type 2, which isn’t always the case. Plus the fact that a GP can easily go most if not all of their working life without ever having to diagnose a type 1 as they are so much rarer. Many years ago type 1 diabetes was known as Juvenile diabetes, and type 2 was known as Maturity-Onset; I thought the whole reason that the names were changed to type 1 and 2 was because it isn't that simple!
 
"Many years ago type 1 diabetes was known as Juvenile diabetes, and type 2 was known as Maturity-Onset".

Very good point!
 
... and the Uni of Exeter sort of publicised C-peptide testing - at one time not so very long ago, theirs was the only Lab in the country that did it!
 
We see it often on the newbies board here - and wierdly unqualified forum members are quite attuned to some of the clues that qualified medics somehow seem to miss - I guess it’s just because diabetes is so up front and present to us, rather than one of a bazillion possible ailments?
 
Last edited:
As I have suggested before, it does not help that anything that is not absolutely and clearly type 1 (pancreatic function stuffed by the immune system) is classed as type 2. Because of that simple distinction, type 2 has to cover anything from excess fat clogging up the system which would otherwise work perfectly to the pancreas going off for some reason other than full on autoimmune disease. It is little wonder that if you change the definitions, you find that a lot of people called type 2 no longer fit in the type 2 box. So where have they been put? In the type 1 box which is as appropriate as putting them in the type 2 box in the first place.

It really is time that some effort was put into characterising diabetes into something other than two categories.
 
I do think GPs could've given some guidelines whereby new cases of diabetes in adults which do not fit the norm are checked out. The only thing that put me in the normal for type 2 box was being (just) over 40. My HBa1c was high, I was slim and loosing weight for no reason, normal blood pressure etc. Ok I could have been type 2, but some investigation would have prevented nine months of being really ill.
 
I saw a flow chart which at one time was used by GPS which had the question
Age >=40? If so Type 2!!!!

Nowadays the percentage of T1s diagnosed over that age is a lot higher, but as the report suggests it is probably a lot higher.
 
this is a worry i am type 2 but when i asked if i was actually type 2 all i got was a mumble so now i believe that i was just labelled because of age. there are loads out there classed as type 2 but now wondering just how many are actually another type. also is it the costs of testing that they are just labelling most as type 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top