March 21, 2010

Official and Unofficial Types of Diabetes

The American Diabetes Association only recognizes a few types of diabetes.  I referred to them and missed a few in my blog of Aug 18, 2009.  If I had been on the ball, I would not have missed the article by Dr. Bill Quick of Aug 17, 2009 where he correctly listed them and the subgroups.  He obtained his from a posting on the ADA site.  The official termination for diabetes includes:
  1. Type 1 and this includes LADA (Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults)
  2. Type 2
  3. Gestational
  4. Other specific types and includes several subgroups (which I will let you read for yourself) and includes MODY (Maturity-onset Diabetes of the Young)
If I have missed something recently published, please let me know.

The unofficial types, or what people want you to believe are recognized, are presently listed as two types only; however, several groups and organizations are competing for each type.  I have not included what I stated in my previous blog.

Type 3. 
Among the groups and organizations that want this unofficial type are some that want to include several of the ADA approved definitions in this to muddy the waters and add to the confusion.

It is interesting how these groups are also trying to get acceptance for their way of classifying diabetes.  It seems that stepping outside ADA is a popular thing to do by various groups.

Type 4. 
Several groups also want this assigned to their way of classifying diabetes.
  • Gestational diabetes - again someone wants this classed as type 4 and one of these is wikihealth.
  • Hypoglcemia - here an individual is the one on the bandwagon and has written a book doing just that.
  • Some of the subgroups included in the ADA definition are included by the doctors website as type 4
The confusion by many individuals is understandable with all the different websites each claiming that their classification is what you should assume is correct.  It seems that many want to be credited with naming the types of diabetes. 

What surprises me is that a new unofficial term of prediabetes is not advocated for in my research efforts yet.  Yes, I am sure that there are those just waiting to do this and if I have not found it, I will shortly.   The ADA has written about it here, but not officially listed it as classification, which may be discouraging some from trying to coop it for their own.

Until the ADA takes a stand and tells individuals, groups, and organizations that they must label their difinitions as unofficial we will continue to have confusion.  On this I will support Dr. Bill Quick when he states "In my opinion, anyone using unofficial terminology, such as type 1.5 or type 3, should acknowledge that it is unofficial, and clearly define what they are talking about."  Here I would include type four and others that show up.

It is time that the ADA came forward and made a statement about those professing that these types are in existance and clear the air about all these unofficial classifications.  The ADA could also comment on the possible types under consideration and let people know that as of yet they are not official.  While I do not always agree with the policies and recommendations of the ADA, we do need an official organization to keep the confusion to a minimum.

No comments: