Aims/hypothesis-Pathophysiological similarities between latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) and type 1 diabetes indicate an overlap in genetic susceptibility. HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DQB1 are major susceptibility genes for type 1 diabetes but studies of these genes in LADA have been limited. Our aim was to define patterns of HLA-encoded susceptibility/protection in a large, well characterised LADA cohort, and to establish association with disease and age at diagnosis.Materials and methods-Patients with LADA (n=387, including 211 patients from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study) and non-diabetic control subjects (n=327) were of British/Irish European origin. The HLA-DRB1 and -DQB1 genes were genotyped by sequence-specific PCR.Results-As in type 1 diabetes mellitus, DRB1*0301_DQB1*0201 (odds ratio [OR]=3.08, 95% CI 2.32-4.12, p=1.2× 10 −16 ) and DRB1*0401_DQB1*0302 (OR=2.57, 95% CI 1.80-3.73, p=4.5×10 −8 ) were the main susceptibility haplotypes in LADA, and DRB1*1501_DQB1*0602 was protective (OR=0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.34, p=4.2×10 −13 ). Differential susceptibility was conferred by DR4 subtypes: DRB1*0401 was predisposing (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.35-2.38, p=2.7×10 −5 ) whereas DRB1*0403 was protective (OR=0.37, 95% CI 0.13-0.97, p=0.033). The highest-risk genotypes were DRB1*0301/DRB1*0401 and DQB1*0201/DQB1*0302 (OR=5.14, 95% CI 2.68-10.69, p=1.3×10 −8 ; and OR=6.88, 95% CI 3.54-14.68, p=1.2×10 −11 , respectively). These genotypes and those containing DRB1*0401 and DQB1*0302 associated with a younger age at diagnosis in LADA, whereas genotypes containing DRB1*1501 and DQB1*0602 associated with an older age at diagnosis.Conclusions/interpretation-Patterns of susceptibility at the HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DQB1 loci in LADA are similar to those reported for type 1 diabetes, supporting the hypothesis that autoimmune diabetes occurring in adults is an age-related extension of the pathophysiological process presenting as childhood-onset type 1 diabetes.

The language used by healthcare professionals can have a profound impact on how people living with diabetes, and those who care for them, experience their condition and feel about living with it day-to-day. At its best, good use of language, both verbal and written, can lower anxiety, build confidence, educate and help to improve self-care. Conversely, poor communication can be stigmatizing, hurtful and undermining of self-care and can have a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes. The language used in the care of those with diabetes has the power to reinforce negative stereotypes, but it also has the power to promote positive ones. The use of language is controversial and has many perspectives. The development of this position statement aimed to take account of these as well as the current evidence base. A working group, representing people with diabetes and key organizations with an interest in the care of people with diabetes, was established to review the use of language. The work of this group has culminated in this position statement for England. It follows the contribution of Australia and the USA to this important international debate. The group has set out practical examples of language that will encourage positive interactions with those living with diabetes and subsequently promote positive outcomes. These examples are based on a review of the evidence and are supported by a simple set of principles.

Aims/hypothesis: The proinflammatory cytokine TNF-α has been implicated in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, and variation in the gene encoding TNF-α (TNF) has shown inconsistent associations with susceptibility to both conditions. Additionally, the coding non-synonymous variant T60N in the neighbouring LTA gene has been reported to be associated with type 2 diabetes. The present study aimed to obtain a robust assessment of the role of variation in the tightly linked TNF/LTA region in diabetes susceptibility by genotyping TNF and LTA variants in large case-control resources. Materials and methods: The G-308A and G-238A TNF promoter variants and the LTA T60N polymorphism were genotyped in two UK case samples that were ascertained for positive family history and/or early onset of type 2 diabetes (combined n=858) and in 1,257 ethnically matched controls. Results: There were no significant associations between the T60N, G-308A or G-238A genotype and type 2 diabetes in the combined analysis (exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic for ordered genotypes for T60N, p=0.69; for G-308A, p=0.51; for G-