Type 2 diabetes mellitus: Isn’t it time to update the terminology?

Table 3 Advantages and disadvantages of replacing the term “type 2 diabetes mellitus” with “metabolic dysfunction associated hyperglycemic disease”

Advantages of updating to MAHD	Limitations/ arguments
The new terminology reflects the pathophysiological basis of the disease	Terms “associated disease” and “metabolic dysfunction” lack clear and standardized definitions
The new terminology (AMAD and MAHD) echoes with the existing terminology with similar pathophysiological mechanisms. e.g., Metabolic dysfunction associated fatty liver diseases
The new terminology is honest and transparent of the major pathophysiological mechanism, thereby providing clarity in care	The new terminology simply exchanges one form of stigma (sugar-related) for another (weight-related)
It groups all the currently considered different diseases with the same pathology into an umbrella of a single disease
It helps in early diagnosis of other components of AMAD
It helps multidisciplinary collaboration and holistic care
It conveys a message of hope and empowerment, reinforcing the idea that early intervention can halt or even reverse the course of the disease
It reflects the interconnections between various metabolic disease and CVD, CKD, necessitating early screening for associated problems
It emphasizes the central role of lifestyle medicine in the promotion of overall health from multiple diseases due to excess fat accumulation
It helps to differentiate other types of diabetes with different pathophysiological mechanisms into different categories

MAHD: Metabolic dysfunction associated hyperglycemic disease; AMAD: Adiposity-induced metabolic dysfunction associated disease; CVD: Cardiovascular disease; CKD: Chronic kidney disease.