What's in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet" (Juliet, from Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare). Shakespeare's implication is that a name is nothing but a word and it therefore represents a convention with no intrinsic meaning. Whilst this may be relevant to romantic literature, disease names do have real meanings, and consequences, in medicine. Hence, there must be a very good rational for changing the name of a disease that has a centuries-old historical context. A working group of representatives from national and international endocrinology and endocrine pediatric societies now proposes changing the name of "diabetes insipidus" to "Arginine Vasopressin Deficiency (AVP-D)" for central etiologies, and "Arginine Vasopressin Resistance (AVP-R)" for nephrogenic etiologies This editorial provides both the historical context and the rational for this proposed name change.
REASONS FOR CHANGING A DISEASE NAMEUnderstanding of disease processes is a dynamic field, with rapidly evolving concepts of pathophysiology based on emerging molecular and genetic data. Consequently, newer understanding of pathophysiology is one of the major reasons for renaming diseases. In endocrinology, appreciation of hyperprolactinemia as the common pathophysiology underlying many different clinical situations causing galactorrhea and amenorrhea led to the effective abandonment of many previous eponymous names for these conditions such as Chiari-Frommel syndrome, Forbes-Albright syndrome, Ahumada-del Castillo syndrome, etc. (1). A second reason is based on historical discoveries that a previous eponymous name for a syndrome was inappropriately