I agree that a c-peptide threshold might be a better basis than passage of time. I use passage of time for two reasons: First, because everyone knows how long it has been since they were diagnosed. So if I say “recruiting people within 1 year of dx” everyone knows if they are in or out. Not everyone knows their c-peptide numbers. (Personal example: my daughter has never had her’s tested.) Even if she had them tested years ago, they clearly change over time, so that number might not be accurate now. Second reason: years ago, when I started this, some studies had “passage of time” entrance requirements, but not c-peptide thresholds. C-peptide testing was not as common 10 years ago as it is now. Now almost all studies have both requirements, but now I’m in the habit of just using passage of time. Is it a good habit? Not sure. But since I don’t know my own daughter’s C-peptide numbers, I’m not likely to change.
Do you know what your C-peptides are? If I published a blog saying only people with C-peptide above X (or below Y) were helped, would that be useful to you?
(Also, I do think the situation is worse for people with LADA, because my “one year” definition of honeymoon is really tailored to classic type-1 onset. My understanding is that LADA comes on more slowly, so my definition of honeymoon may not apply. I’m sorry for that.)