Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022
The measurement of autoantibodies to insulin informs diagnosis of diabetes in a childhood population negative for other autoantibodies.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Williams Claire L, Aitken Rachel J, Wilson Isabel V, Mortimer Georgina L M, Long Anna E, Williams Alistair J K, BOX Study Group, Gillespie Kathleen M
Аннотация
AIMS: Some childhood type 1 diabetes cases are islet autoantibody negative at diagnosis. Potential explanations include misdiagnosis of genetic forms of diabetes or insufficient islet autoantibody testing. Many NHS laboratories offer combinations of three autoantibody markers. We sought to determine the benefit of testing for additional islet autoantibodies, including insulin (IAA) and tetraspanin 7 (TSPAN7A).
METHODS: Radiobinding assays (RBAs) were used to test for four islet autoantibodies in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (n = 486; 54.1% male; median age 10.4 years [range 0.7-18.0]; median duration 1 day [range -183 to 14]). Islet autoantibody negative children were tested for TSPAN7A using a luminescence-based test. Where available, islet cell antibody (ICA) and human leucocyte antigen (HLA) data were considered.
RESULTS: Using three autoantibody markers, 21/486 (4.3%) children were autoantibody negative. Testing for IAA classified a further 9/21 (42.9%) children as autoantibody positive. Of the remaining 12 (2.5%) autoantibody negative children, all were TPAN7A negative, seven were ICA negative and one was positive for the protective variant DQB1*0602. One was subsequently diagnosed with Maturity Onset of Diabetes in the Young, but follow-up was not available in all cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Using highly sensitive assays, testing for three autoantibodies fails to detect islet autoimmunity in approximately 1/20 children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Testing for IAA in children <5 years and GADA in those >10 years was the most effective strategy for detecting islet autoimmunity. The ability to test for all islet autoantibodies should inform clinical decisions and make screening for monogenic diabetes more cost-effective.
METHODS: Radiobinding assays (RBAs) were used to test for four islet autoantibodies in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (n = 486; 54.1% male; median age 10.4 years [range 0.7-18.0]; median duration 1 day [range -183 to 14]). Islet autoantibody negative children were tested for TSPAN7A using a luminescence-based test. Where available, islet cell antibody (ICA) and human leucocyte antigen (HLA) data were considered.
RESULTS: Using three autoantibody markers, 21/486 (4.3%) children were autoantibody negative. Testing for IAA classified a further 9/21 (42.9%) children as autoantibody positive. Of the remaining 12 (2.5%) autoantibody negative children, all were TPAN7A negative, seven were ICA negative and one was positive for the protective variant DQB1*0602. One was subsequently diagnosed with Maturity Onset of Diabetes in the Young, but follow-up was not available in all cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Using highly sensitive assays, testing for three autoantibodies fails to detect islet autoimmunity in approximately 1/20 children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Testing for IAA in children <5 years and GADA in those >10 years was the most effective strategy for detecting islet autoimmunity. The ability to test for all islet autoantibodies should inform clinical decisions and make screening for monogenic diabetes more cost-effective.