Did you have a pet when diagnosed with Type 1?

Tim35 - the “more information” is contained in the article I linked after the statement. It’s from a website for endocrinologists.

The reason genetic testing is not used clinically is that it’s extremely expensive to perform the necessary testing - AND the dx’s is easily and cheaply performed with FPG and C-peptide testing. Also… the genetic testing would have to cover multiple genetic anomalies - not a single anomaly.

Like Celiac’s, many HLA anomaly-carriers never get T1. So while testing for it may identify a person as “at risk”, it may mean nothing - another unnecessary expense in the eyes of the insurance providers.

w.

Yes I’ve had pets my whole life. I was diagnosed much later in life.

You are wrong about type 1 affecting mostly children. Half of the people diagnosed in the US each year are over 30 years old and many adults are misdiagnosed as type 2 due to age. I doubt fleas has anything to do with it because many people are exposed to fleas and a whole host of other things but very few end up with type 1.

I did wonder if the flea poison I started using on our cats had something to do with my type1 it certainly had something to do with 3 of them getting cancer. I had never used it in the past and I don’t anymore.

I think there are many factors in type 1 first starting with a hereditary autoimmune link in the family history. Then exposure to multiple issues such as a virus, chemical exposure, a huge physical or mental trauma, or in my case gluten and grains. I don’t think that was the only factor for me but it definitely played a role.

This is incorrect. I believe statistically the distribution is about even between juvenile and adult onset for T1, or even slightly leaning toward the latter (whereas T2 does skew toward adult/middle-age). And yet still adults will get a knee-jerk dx of T2 based on age, when the whole point of using the T1/T2 nomenclature was to avoid the inaccurate age-association. Hasn’t been notably successful.

Many people bitten by fleas did not get the Bubonic Plague but 75 million
bitten by INFECTED fleas or rats did.

Many bitten by mosquitoes don’t get malaria but countless people bitten by
INFECTED mosquitoes did and do.

This is still true today:

" “The disease can be transmitted to humans and other animals by the bite
of an infected flea or by direct contact with an infected animal.”

If fleas and mosquitoes can cause plaque and malaria and other diseases,
seems to stand to reason it could very easily be the cause of the spread of
Diabetes today.
Again, I’m not claiming a Eureka! moment, just wish someone would take this
possibility more seriously when looking for a cause.

DrBB, prv8eye: In Cecil’s Textbook of Medicine by Wyngaarden, Smith, and Bennett (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 19th Edition) p. 1292, it says, “The peak age of onset of IDDM (type 1 diabetes) is 11 to 13 years, coinciding with early adolescence and puberty. A secondary peak is noted at age 6 to 8 years, and by the third decade of life incidence falls to a steady but still substantial level. It is unusual for IDDM to begin past age 40.”

On the Endocrine Web website for Type 1 Diabetes, Dr. James Norman says, "Type 1 diabetes usually begins before age 40, although there have been people diagnosed at an older age. In the United States, the peak age of diagnosis is around 14. So it still seems safe to say it is a disease with a predominant pattern of onset in youth.

Whether that’s also the peak age at which people are first exposed to domestic animals would be interesting to know, though the fact that in earlier eras, when most people grew up on farms, the incidence of type 1 diabetes was lower leads me to think that animals are not much of a factor in the etiology.

Yes of course fleas can transmit viruses and other diseases. But it’s a big leap so far at least to say fleas or contact with animals gave your daughter type 1. There are probably multiple things that lead to that first starting with hereditary autoimmune genetics. So far there is no direct or even a fuzzy link between type 1 and fleas or flea bites. To say fleas etc are the cause of the diabetes epidemic or whatever people are calling it is kinda cray imo :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes

Is not that book 25 years old? Although perhaps I am looking at the wrong publication…

1 Like

According to this Type 1 Diabetes Facts document reported by JDRF:

Statistics

1.25M Americans are living with T1D including about 200,000 youth (less than 20 years old) and over a million adults (20 years old and older)1,2,5 [Footnote 1: CDC National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2014]

As @Melitta has written many times over the years, there are a lot more adults than children living with type 1 diabetes, by far. According to this report by a ratio of 5:1 adults:childern with T1D. The statistical diagnosis bump around ages 11-13 does not equate to numerical majority; these are two different things, apples and oranges. The perpetuation of this predominance of T1D diagnosis in youth myth clinically harms T1D adults misdiagnosed with another type of diabetes.

2 Likes

@Terry4 - Those numbers are interesting. Approximately 27% of Americans are under 20 years of age. (Current Demographic statistics)

So if the distribution of T1 was even by age across the US population, I would expect the number of T1D to be more around 337,000 rather than 200,000 (ie - 27% of the 1.25M American population of T1D) . Not being a professional statistician myself, I would still see these numbers to mean that when looking at the population at large, adults are more likely to have T1D than a youth (under 20 years of age).

Your thoughts?

I haven’t seen the incidence by age numbers. The older cohort statistics is also distorted with the estimate of 10% of T2Ds really being T1Ds.

The total number of type 1 diabetics in the population has always been uncertain, but that would be what statisticians call the prevalence, and I assumed we are talking about the age at incidence. Of course most type 1 diabetics now living are older than the teenage years, but it is still true (as both my old book from medical school and the modern internet source I quote confirm) that the median age of onset of type 1 diabetes is 14, not some older age, though onset does occur at later ages. My own grandmother was diagnosed with type 1 at age 56.

The true facts around age of onset of Type 1 Diabetes are not so easily nor quickly obtained. Literature of any sort from decades ago is likely to be generally useless when discussing the age of onset of Type 1 Diabetes. Using any single number (regardless of what sort of statistically definition one might choose to give any such number) is likely to not have any real value other than a quick sound bite.

The actual facts around the age of onset of Type 1 Diabetes are that it is very difficult to present modern, accurate, medically sound, statistically valid and overall good information. Modern studies often times are specifically looking at children OR adults but not both in the same study. Numbers are further confused by accurately defining exactly what is Type 1 and what is Type 2 and what is a different form of diabetes.

Obviously personal experiences are not relevant to what the greater population may be experiencing.

It does become readily apparent that older information which at the time was thought to be accurate as regards to age of onset of Type 1 diabetes had serious factual problems for multiple reasons. Anecdotally it does appear that people including former or current members of the larger medical community continue to believe and disseminate older information which has more recently been shown to be inaccurate.

Dr Nicholas JM Thomas, of the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, United Kingdom recently presented data on September 16, 2016 at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2016 Annual Meeting.

(Link for Medscape needs an account to access but it is a free account and only takes about 10 seconds to create so pretty easy if you want to see the source here.)

[clips below are selected direct quotes from the web link above]

Obtained using genetic data from the UK Biobank, the startling results refute the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a “juvenile” condition."

It’s been nearly 20 years since the terms “juvenile” and “adult-onset” diabetes were officially changed to “type 1” and “type 2,” yet the perception persists among the nonspecialist medical community and the lay public that adults who develop autoimmune-mediated diabetes are rare or unusual.

Indeed, Dr Thomas explained in his presentation, most studies on type 1 diabetes are conducted in children and adolescents, and very few epidemiologic data are available about type 1 diabetes later in life.

The problem, he said, is that “in childhood, almost all the cases of diabetes are type 1 diabetes, so they’re easier to spot because they stand out, whereas later in life we see a dramatic increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, so the cases of type 1 diabetes are drowned out and less easy” to identify.

As expected, when they factored in age they found that nearly all the diabetes below age 30 years was type 1 (autoimmune), and with increasing age the prevalence of type 2 diabetes rose dramatically.

However, to their surprise, they also found that the number of type 1 diabetes cases remained constant from age 30 to 60 years of age, so that roughly half of type 1 diabetes was occurring after age 30 but was “drowned out” by the vast number of type 2 cases, Dr Thomas explained.

In all, 53% (242/457) of type 1 cases are diagnosed 30 years and younger, accounting for 74% (242/326) of all diabetes cases diagnosed in this age range, whereas 47% (215/457) of cases are diagnosed from 31 to 60 years of age, accounting for just 5% (215/4335) of diabetes cases diagnosed in this age range.

He reiterated that type 1 diabetes is evenly distributed within the first 6 decades of life, but after age 30, the increase in type 2 diabetes makes the type 1 cases harder to recognize and treat correctly.

4 Likes

Since the way type 1 diabetes presents is so dramatic, and so much in contrast with the slow, steady, worsening seen in type 2 diabetes, where it is not usual for the patient to require insulin at the beginning, while it is invariably the case that type 1 patients will require it at onset, I wouldn’t think they would be easily confused. While Dr. Thomas’s theory will be interesting to watch to see if it gains acceptance, for now the consensus is still that type 1 diabetes is predominantly a youth-onset condition.

I was actually present to the name change of juvenile diabetes to type 1 diabetes, since when I was diagnosed in 1966, we were required to take a one-week course in managing the disease given at the Joslin Clinic by doctors from Harvard Medical School, which was associated with the Clinic. My old notes of those lectures still attest to the fact that the name change was under consideration at that time, but it was done because the autoimmune etiology of type 1 was being recognized, not because of any perceived upward shift in the typical age of diagnosis.

Certainly everybody is entitled to their own personal opinions. At the same time, one’s own personal opinion does not equate to a valid fact.

1 Like

I’m a rookie here but isn’t it true that type 2 which is not well managed then often turns into type 1 ?
If that is the case wouldn’t that skew the numbers of juvenile vs adult onset of type 1?
Regardless, I don’t see what it matters except to those adults who are bothered by the term “Juvenile Diabetes”. Whatever you call it, it sucks.

2 Likes

I first heard of it the day I was dx’d in 1983 at age 28. Even way back then my diagnosing physician explained to me that it wasn’t unusual to get auto-immune diabetes at my age (allowing for the fact that it’s a relatively rare condition), and that’s why there was a movement underway to change the nomenclature to Type 1/Type 2. But in the meantime I was stuck with “juvenile.” Still says that on my medical record. My dissertation advisor, a dry-witted Brit, responding to my letter requesting an extension on a seminar paper due to my diagnosis, quipped, “It must be even more annoying to get the juvenile kind.”

Before hanging around this place I held the same view, which totally fits my experience even though I was in my 20s at dx. But after hearing a lot of others’ dx stories, it seems there are at least two patterns. I know, plural of anecdote ≠ data, but a lot of folks here report being initially misdiagnosed T2 and treated with Metformin for months or even years before getting their antibodies tested and finally getting on insulin. When I first heard one of those stories I was gobsmacked because mine came on over a few weeks and I was verging on DKA when I was brought in. But there are a significant number here who experienced a much slower onset, more like typical T2. Apparently this is why they can be easily confused–it seems a pretty common occurrence and a harmful one, that’s why people can get pretty exercised about it.

Interesting. As I said in my other comment about this, my diagnosing physician told me the age thing was the reason, but of course he was addressing my situation particularly and there may certainly be multiple reasons for a change of this nature. The other thing that strikes me: 1966, vs 1983 (when I heard it). My impression at the time was that it was a relatively recent development but I keep seeing references that push the proposal back, even I think to the 1950s. I expect the arguments in favor of the change may have evolved over that long a span.

Amen brother.

Not 'zackly. T2s often do become insulin-dependent, but in the cases of T1s initially misdiagnosed as T2, it’s a matter of antibodies. The slow onset of a lot of adult cases masks the fact that it’s the auto-immune destruction of islet cells, not growing insulin resistance, that’s at fault. Once they get tested for antibodies the dx can be corrected and they start on insulin.

ETA: Welcome to TUD!

No type 2 Does NOT turn into type 1. Type 2 can become insulin dependent and most usually does over time. Type one has proven autoimmune antibodies and is actually a different disease process than type2 as far as we know at this point in time and that will not likely change. Onset of age for type 1 can be any age. It’s not a juvenile disease even though it has been painted that way for years. Think MTM who was 30 years old at her diagnosis. After my diagnosis jdrf sent me a package with info that stated there are about 30,000 diagnosed each year in the US- 15,000 are under 30 and 15,000 are over 30. I think that data used to be at their website also.

Well… I’m terribly late following up here - but I thought I’d put a few adds to meee’s post. As noted - T2 NEVER “becomes” T1. They are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT DISEASES. T1 is an autoimmune condition, wherein the body’s own immune system destroys the insulin-producing endocrine beta cells of the pancreas. As a result, T1’s produce virtually NO insulin, and must inject it.

T2 is a metabolic disorder, wherein the body’s cells resist the action of insulin, which is to transfer glucose from the bloodstream (the body’s “delivery system”) into the cells - which NEED IT for fuel. Because the insulin isn’t working efficiently - their bodies produce more-than-normal amounts of insulin. This is why the C-peptide test is used to determine type - C-peptide is a proxy for insulin production, and in T2’s, the level is higher-than-normal, while in T1’s, it’s lower - even zero.

The reason T2’s may eventually need insulin is twofold - their bodies cellular resistance keeps increasing, and may reach a point where they can no longer produce enough “extra” insulin to help with even meager BG control, AND… insuilnemia (the condition of excessive insulin presence in the cells for long periods) effects damage to the beta cells - both total mass, and insulin-producing capacity, resulting in further “shortage” - of “extra” insulin.