Type 3

I just read an article about type 3c diabetes on Diabetes Daily which was used with permission, as it was originally published by Beyond Type 1.

The article was very interesting but left me wondering.

I’ve heard type 3 used a few times before, 1) referring to those who are the caregivers for another with diabetes and 2) for those who have Alzheimer’s disease. I’m learning now there is another type 3, 3) referring to those who no longer have a pancreas. This type for the pancreas does have an addition of the “c” after the “3”, much like there is type 1a and type 1b.

How and when will healthcare get a handle on all of the various types of diabetes. The article I just mentioned addresses the fact that type 3 is not a recognized diagnosis, so for insurance purposes, they have a type 1 diagnosis.

As a community, I would like to see us better define type 3, so each group can seek and attain the assistance they need, without the confusion of three totally different types (caregivers, Alzheimer’s, no pancreas) all referred to as one entity, type 3.

Could it be that type 3a is for caregivers and 3b is for Alzheimer’s and now type 3c is for no pancreas?

Your thoughts?

Is there something we can and should do?

1 Like

I am not sure it really matters.
Type 1 essentially means your pancreas is not making insulin. So it if it damaged or removed or victim of your immune system it really doesn’t matter clinically.
You have a lack of insulin so you need insulin.
LADA needs special attention because is a very slow burn and often they still make some insulin, for a while anyway, but then end up the same in the end.
I suppose amylase and lipase are issues if you have no pancreas but those are not blood sugar related specifically.
So a person with no pancreas is going to be treated the same as an autoimmune type1 anyway.
Besides I have to think that it’s very rare thing to happen.

2 Likes

depending on who is counting and how there are upwards of 14 recognized types. Perhaps.

1 Like

The author of the article seemed to think that it did and they wished there was more known about it, so support and understanding was more forthcoming. Or, at least that is how I read the article.

I do understand your meaning though :slight_smile:

Wow. I didn’t realize that! Thanks :slight_smile:

I never say ‘type 1’ or ‘type 2.’ I always say ‘insulin dependent’ and ‘NOT insulin dependent.’ That’s really what they want to know. A lot of people can’t remember which is which, so this gets to the meat of it, without them getting embarrassed and needing to ask or getting it wrong.

2 Likes

Smart!

1 Like

I finally read through the article. It seems like the author wants to be understood and validated that her condit

1 Like

I think all of those should have a different number. The confusion won’t end with adding a letter to the number. Many people will only remember the number if they hear about one of these type at all.

1 Like