Hey guys, have you seen this? Seems to go in contrast to the more optimistic studies like the Pittsburgh study etc for life expectancy. Are there problems with this study and how does it stack up to the earlier studies that state the life expectancy of T1s is really only very slightly different from the general population, if you were born after 1965?
I couldn’t find when they conducted this survey of people. What were the years that the people had diabetes? Maybe it’s buried in the report, but I didn’t see it. I would like to have this information.
agreed. It would certainly explain things if they are basing this on folks who were born in the 50’s or something when early control was terrible.
How could they tell if men died 14 years younger on average. That would mean they died in 2004 ish, and the average man lives to 77 years old, so that would make them 63 at the time of death…2004 minus 63 years old is 1941 birthdate.
That means many bad decades in the dark ages. Am I making sense?
EDIT: looks like they followed people from a registry for a 10 year period and looked at risk ratios…still unclear as to how that gives life expectancy accurate numbers
Life expectancy of a woman in Sweden is 83 years.
Subtract 18 from that, get 65 years for the T1 women’s life expectancy.
BUT That is only for women diagnosed before the age of 10.
So they must have been diagnosed T1 55 or more years ago.
In the past 55 years there have been a lot of advances in diabetes treatment. I mean, really, when I was diagnosed 36 years ago it was urine testing only and basal+bolus was unheard of (although I was lucky was moved on to blood sugar testing quite quickly.)
Bummer, I was born before 1965.
I ignore studies like this. They are meaningless when applied to a given person.
Diagnosed in 1977. Told to expect that by 25 years I would be blind and missing one or more digits/limbs.
The general statistic is that type 1 diabetics have a life expectancy 11 years shorter than the average. It has long been known that the earlier diabetes is diagnosed the worse it is, though the cut off point at which lifetime complications are worse turned out in previous studies to be around diagnosis before age 15. Interestingly, this is not because complications have begun earlier and so continued longer, since adolescents seem generally immune to clinically significant complications.
This study is not all that different from what was already known, since if generally type 1s are dying 11 years prematurely, then the special subset of those diagnosed very early dying 18 or 14 years too early if female or male, respectively, could fit into that earlier statistic, given the small numbers of those in that category.
It is certainly a statistically strong study, with more than 27,000 patients studied over a decade, which is a huge sample size.
I’d be curious about responses to this.