Artoo and I began our little adventure just over a year ago. It has been as steep a learning curve as anyone ever suggested it might be. At times it has felt like I was newly diagnosed all over again, and despite 20ish years of experience with injections, there were weeks when that knowledge seemed to count for almost nothing.
A year ago I noted that in hindsight, perhaps beginning to completely change insulin delivery method immediately before one of the most challenging and notoriously chaotic times if the year foodwise might seem a little foolhardy. But in the current challenging financial climate it would be a brave man who would turn down the offer of NHS funding for an insulin pump without a very good reason.
Last Christmas was, if I'm honest, a bit of a mess BG-wise. Much as I stand by the general assertion among people living with diabetes that there are two days (Christmas and birthdays) on which and any carbs eaten don't count, the perfectionist in me delights in giving myself a kicking whenever dodgy results appear. Even when (and perhaps especially if) I'm sort of expecting them. I didn't get myself into any serious bother last December, but it was certainly not my finest hour. Since the Summer, and especially since changing the sets I use to Silhouettes (with occasional Quickset), Artoo seems to have really got into his stride. I had a pleasant surprise with an A1c improvement at my annual review, and if anything averages and SD have been slightly better since (with the occasional lapse obviously!).
I'm not naive enough to expect a Christmas entirely without an errant reading (or 10), but my trust in Artoo's judgement and general ability to accurately correct my mistakes has never been higher. As long as I can weather the basal-tweaking turbulence when the lack of gym visits kicks-in I am hopeful that I might be able to enjoy a few treats here and there over the festive period (along with the inevitable selection of wildly non-standard meals) and still keep a relatively decent hold of things. I can but hope.
Thanks to everyone who has visited and commented on our blog this year. It has been an eventful and exciting one in many ways and it has been lovely to share it with you all.
Have a brilliant Christmas and here's to unexpectedly good results this festive season and rock-steady BGs for 2013 all round.
Posted by Mike on Saturday, 22 December 2012
Posted by Mike on Wednesday, 19 December 2012
Unusual suspects : age at diagnosis
A short while ago I was musing about one of the questions which form part of the scope of my little side project. It got me thinking, and in order to have a slim chance of having something to say when the subject eventually comes up for discussion I began to wonder just how old people generally are when they are diagnosed with various types of diabetes.
In the old days, of course, things were much more straightforward - even the conditions themselves were referred in terms of 'juvenile' and 'maturity' onset. But I'm forever coming across folks in forums who were diagnosed with 'type 1' (which is typically thought of as a condition that develops in childhood) well into their autumn years.
There was an obvious answer to satisfy my curiosity - just ask you lot. So I decided to conduct a quick straw poll and asked around the good people of the DOC for their age at diagnosis. Now of course this was not carried out with much, if any scientific rigour - but I find the results fascinating nonetheless.
First off I was absolutely humbled and amazed as ever by people's generosity of spirit in the DOC. Within hours of tweeting, "I'm just curious..." I'd been inundated by responses from people who had never heard of me before and my little tweet was bouncing all over the twitosphere with RT after RT. Facebookers and forum peeps waded in and before you could say, "well I wasn't expecting that" I had over 220 responses. Two hundred. And twenty. Many of the 'proper' research projects I see and read have sample populations in the 10s. People even continued to respond for a short while after I'd gathered the results in from the various places.
While I recognise that I was asking a particularly skewed demographic, I found it interesting that after logging 70 or 80 anonymised responses into a spreadsheet the proportions of people in the different age groups remained almost entirely unchanged right up until that 221st person chipped in. So while I completely accept the limitations of the survey I do wonder whether it isn't that far off the real picture.
So what did I discover?
The first and perhaps most surprising thing I discovered was that members of the DOC are much more likely to be type 1. I'm not absolutely sure why this is - perhaps because the management of type 2 is often downplayed by healthcare professionals and people are (mistakenly) led to believe that type 2 is somehow 'less serious'. People with type 1 it seems are more likely to feel like they are struggling and to seek help and support online. So while in the UK population type 1's make up only 10% of diabetics, in my survey they represent 72% of responses!
Oldest and youngest
Of the type 1's the age at diagnosis ranged from just a few months old right up to 66. Type 2's were similarly stereotype-defying ranging from 17 up to 66 again. The average age for diagnosis with type 1 was 18, while the average age for type 2 diagnosis was 45. I didn't specifically ask the question, but at least a dozen people volunteered the information that they had first been diagnosed as type 2 and later reclassified as type 1 or LADA. The average age for the first diagnosis in this group was 35. It would seem that if you are diagnosed with diabetes in your 30s then you stand the highest chance of your Dr putting a tick in the wrong box, and if the treatment you are receiving isn't working despite your best efforts it might be worth asking for some more tests!
Just the facts ma'am
For those who fancy poring over the numbers/proportions for themselves here are the basic analysis tables that Excel squirted out:
So while, as you might expect, over 50% of T1s are diagnosed by the age of 18, almost half of them aren't. Coupled with which the number of people diagnosed with type 2 in their 20s - early 30s is a pretty meagre 15%, with the several of those being later reclassified). One T1 respondent mentioned that at 18 they were told they were 'too old' to be type 1. For another this happened in their mid-20s.
It would seem that getting diagnosed at an unusual age is, well... er... not that unusual.
In the old days, of course, things were much more straightforward - even the conditions themselves were referred in terms of 'juvenile' and 'maturity' onset. But I'm forever coming across folks in forums who were diagnosed with 'type 1' (which is typically thought of as a condition that develops in childhood) well into their autumn years.
There was an obvious answer to satisfy my curiosity - just ask you lot. So I decided to conduct a quick straw poll and asked around the good people of the DOC for their age at diagnosis. Now of course this was not carried out with much, if any scientific rigour - but I find the results fascinating nonetheless.
First off I was absolutely humbled and amazed as ever by people's generosity of spirit in the DOC. Within hours of tweeting, "I'm just curious..." I'd been inundated by responses from people who had never heard of me before and my little tweet was bouncing all over the twitosphere with RT after RT. Facebookers and forum peeps waded in and before you could say, "well I wasn't expecting that" I had over 220 responses. Two hundred. And twenty. Many of the 'proper' research projects I see and read have sample populations in the 10s. People even continued to respond for a short while after I'd gathered the results in from the various places.
While I recognise that I was asking a particularly skewed demographic, I found it interesting that after logging 70 or 80 anonymised responses into a spreadsheet the proportions of people in the different age groups remained almost entirely unchanged right up until that 221st person chipped in. So while I completely accept the limitations of the survey I do wonder whether it isn't that far off the real picture.
So what did I discover?
The first and perhaps most surprising thing I discovered was that members of the DOC are much more likely to be type 1. I'm not absolutely sure why this is - perhaps because the management of type 2 is often downplayed by healthcare professionals and people are (mistakenly) led to believe that type 2 is somehow 'less serious'. People with type 1 it seems are more likely to feel like they are struggling and to seek help and support online. So while in the UK population type 1's make up only 10% of diabetics, in my survey they represent 72% of responses!
Oldest and youngest
Of the type 1's the age at diagnosis ranged from just a few months old right up to 66. Type 2's were similarly stereotype-defying ranging from 17 up to 66 again. The average age for diagnosis with type 1 was 18, while the average age for type 2 diagnosis was 45. I didn't specifically ask the question, but at least a dozen people volunteered the information that they had first been diagnosed as type 2 and later reclassified as type 1 or LADA. The average age for the first diagnosis in this group was 35. It would seem that if you are diagnosed with diabetes in your 30s then you stand the highest chance of your Dr putting a tick in the wrong box, and if the treatment you are receiving isn't working despite your best efforts it might be worth asking for some more tests!
Just the facts ma'am
For those who fancy poring over the numbers/proportions for themselves here are the basic analysis tables that Excel squirted out:
| Type 1 | Type 2 | Total | ||
| Number | 158 | 63 | 221 | |
| Average Dx Age | 18 | 45 | ||
| Dx uncertainty/change | 12 | |||
| Avg Age at initial Dx if changed | 35 | |||
| By age group | Type 1 | Type 2 | T1 % | T2 % |
| <= 17 | 90 | 0 | 57% | 0% |
| 18-34 | 47 | 7 | 30% | 15% |
| 35-44 | 14 | 24 | 9% | 38% |
| 45-64 | 5 | 29 | 3% | 38% |
| 65+ | 2 | 3 | 1% | 5% |
So while, as you might expect, over 50% of T1s are diagnosed by the age of 18, almost half of them aren't. Coupled with which the number of people diagnosed with type 2 in their 20s - early 30s is a pretty meagre 15%, with the several of those being later reclassified). One T1 respondent mentioned that at 18 they were told they were 'too old' to be type 1. For another this happened in their mid-20s.
It would seem that getting diagnosed at an unusual age is, well... er... not that unusual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)