Diagnosing type 1 diabetes in adults is difficult since type 2 diabetes is the predominant diabetes type, particularly with an older age of onset (approximately >30 years). Misclassification of type ...1 diabetes in adults is therefore common and will impact both individual patient management and the reported features of clinically classified cohorts. In this article, we discuss the challenges associated with correctly identifying adult-onset type 1 diabetes and the implications of these challenges for clinical practice and research. We discuss how many of the reported differences in the characteristics of autoimmune/type 1 diabetes with increasing age of diagnosis are likely explained by the inadvertent study of mixed populations with and without autoimmune aetiology diabetes. We show that when type 1 diabetes is defined by high-specificity methods, clinical presentation, islet-autoantibody positivity, genetic predisposition and progression of C-peptide loss remain broadly similar and severe at all ages and are unaffected by onset age within adults. Recent clinical guidance recommends routine islet-autoantibody testing when type 1 diabetes is clinically suspected or in the context of rapid progression to insulin therapy after a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. In this moderate or high prior-probability setting, a positive islet-autoantibody test will usually confirm autoimmune aetiology (type 1 diabetes). We argue that islet-autoantibody testing of those with apparent type 2 diabetes should not be routinely undertaken as, in this low prior-prevalence setting, the positive predictive value of a single-positive islet antibody for autoimmune aetiology diabetes will be modest. When studying diabetes, extremely high-specificity approaches are needed to identify autoimmune diabetes in adults, with the optimal approach depending on the research question. We believe that until these recommendations are widely adopted by researchers, the true phenotype of late-onset type 1 diabetes will remain largely misunderstood.
Graphical Abstract
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Research using data-driven cluster analysis has proposed five subgroups of diabetes with differences in diabetes progression and risk of complications. We aimed to compare the clinical utility of ...this subgroup-based approach for predicting patient outcomes with an alternative strategy of developing models for each outcome using simple patient characteristics.
We identified five clusters in the ADOPT trial (n=4351) using the same data-driven cluster analysis as reported by Ahlqvist and colleagues. Differences between clusters in glycaemic and renal progression were investigated and contrasted with stratification using simple continuous clinical features (age at diagnosis for glycaemic progression and baseline renal function for renal progression). We compared the effectiveness of a strategy of selecting glucose-lowering therapy using clusters with one combining simple clinical features (sex, BMI, age at diagnosis, baseline HbA1c) in an independent trial cohort (RECORD n=4447).
Clusters identified in trial data were similar to those described in the original study by Ahlqvist and colleagues. Clusters showed differences in glycaemic progression, but a model using age at diagnosis alone explained a similar amount of variation in progression. We found differences in incidence of chronic kidney disease between clusters; however, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline was a better predictor of time to chronic kidney disease. Clusters differed in glycaemic response, with a particular benefit for thiazolidinediones in patients in the severe insulin-resistant diabetes cluster and for sulfonylureas in patients in the mild age-related diabetes cluster. However, simple clinical features outperformed clusters to select therapy for individual patients.
The proposed data-driven clusters differ in diabetes progression and treatment response, but models that are based on simple continuous clinical features are more useful to stratify patients. This finding suggests that precision medicine in type 2 diabetes is likely to have most clinical utility if it is based on an approach of using specific phenotypic measures to predict specific outcomes, rather than assigning patients to subgroups.
UK Medical Research Council.
Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA) is typically defined as a new diabetes diagnosis after 35 years of age, presenting with clinical features of type 2 diabetes, in whom a type 1 ...diabetes-associated islet autoantibody is detected. Identifying autoimmune diabetes is important since the prognosis and optimal therapy differ. However, the existing LADA definition identifies a group with clinical and genetic features intermediate between typical type 1 and type 2 diabetes. It is unclear whether this is due to
) true autoimmune diabetes with a milder phenotype at older onset ages that initially appears similar to type 2 diabetes but later requires insulin,
) a disease syndrome where the pathophysiologies of type 1 and type 2 diabetes are both present in each patient, or
) a heterogeneous group resulting from difficulties in classification. Herein, we suggest that difficulties in classification are a major component resulting from defining LADA using a diagnostic test-islet autoantibody measurement-with imperfect specificity applied in low-prevalence populations. This yields a heterogeneous group of true positives (autoimmune type 1 diabetes) and false positives (nonautoimmune type 2 diabetes). For clinicians, this means that islet autoantibody testing should not be undertaken in patients who do not have clinical features suggestive of autoimmune diabetes: in an adult without clinical features of type 1 diabetes, it is likely that a single positive antibody will represent a false-positive result. This is in contrast to patients with features suggestive of type 1 diabetes, where false-positive results will be rare. For researchers, this means that current definitions of LADA are not appropriate for the study of autoimmune diabetes in later life. Approaches that increase test specificity, or prior likelihood of autoimmune diabetes, are needed to avoid inclusion of participants who have nonautoimmune (type 2) diabetes. Improved classification will allow improved assignment of prognosis and therapy as well as an improved cohort in which to analyze and better understand the detailed pathophysiological components acting at onset and during disease progression in late-onset autoimmune diabetes.
Recent epidemiological data have shown that more than half of all new cases of type 1 diabetes occur in adults. Key genetic, immune, and metabolic differences exist between adult- and childhood-onset ...type 1 diabetes, many of which are not well understood. A substantial risk of misclassification of diabetes type can result. Notably, some adults with type 1 diabetes may not require insulin at diagnosis, their clinical disease can masquerade as type 2 diabetes, and the consequent misclassification may result in inappropriate treatment. In response to this important issue, JDRF convened a workshop of international experts in November 2019. Here, we summarize the current understanding and unanswered questions in the field based on those discussions, highlighting epidemiology and immunogenetic and metabolic characteristics of adult-onset type 1 diabetes as well as disease-associated comorbidities and psychosocial challenges. In adult-onset, as compared with childhood-onset, type 1 diabetes, HLA-associated risk is lower, with more protective genotypes and lower genetic risk scores; multiple diabetes-associated autoantibodies are decreased, though GADA remains dominant. Before diagnosis, those with autoantibodies progress more slowly, and at diagnosis, serum C-peptide is higher in adults than children, with ketoacidosis being less frequent. Tools to distinguish types of diabetes are discussed, including body phenotype, clinical course, family history, autoantibodies, comorbidities, and C-peptide. By providing this perspective, we aim to improve the management of adults presenting with type 1 diabetes.
Precision medicine aims to treat an individual based on their clinical characteristics. A differential drug response, critical to using these features for therapy selection, has never been examined ...directly in type 2 diabetes. In this study, we tested two hypotheses: (1) individuals with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m
, compared to BMI ≤ 30 kg/m
, have greater glucose lowering with thiazolidinediones than with DPP4 inhibitors, and (2) individuals with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60-90 ml/min/1.73 m
, compared to eGFR >90 ml/min/1.73 m
, have greater glucose lowering with DPP4 inhibitors than with SGLT2 inhibitors. The primary endpoint for both hypotheses was the achieved HbA1c difference between strata for the two drugs. In total, 525 people with type 2 diabetes participated in this UK-based randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover trial of 16 weeks of treatment with each of sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily added to metformin alone or metformin plus sulfonylurea. Overall, the achieved HbA1c was similar for the three drugs: pioglitazone 59.6 mmol/mol, sitagliptin 60.0 mmol/mol and canagliflozin 60.6 mmol/mol (P = 0.2). Participants with BMI > 30 kg/m
, compared to BMI ≤ 30 kg/m
, had a 2.88 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98, 4.79) lower HbA1c on pioglitazone than on sitagliptin (n = 356, P = 0.003). Participants with eGFR 60-90 ml/min/1.73 m
, compared to eGFR >90 ml/min/1.73 m
, had a 2.90 mmol/mol (95% CI: 1.19, 4.61) lower HbA1c on sitagliptin than on canagliflozin (n = 342, P = 0.001). There were 2,201 adverse events reported, and 447/525 (85%) randomized participants experienced an adverse event on at least one of the study drugs. In this precision medicine trial in type 2 diabetes, our findings support the use of simple, routinely available clinical measures to identify the drug class most likely to deliver the greatest glycemic reduction for a given patient. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02653209 ; ISRCTN registration: 12039221 .).
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK, ZAGLJ
With rising obesity, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in young adults. There has been substantial recent progress in ...identifying the contribution of common genetic variants to T1D and T2D. We aimed to determine whether a score generated from common genetic variants could be used to discriminate between T1D and T2D and also to predict severe insulin deficiency in young adults with diabetes.
We developed genetic risk scores (GRSs) from published T1D- and T2D-associated variants. We first tested whether the scores could distinguish clinically defined T1D and T2D from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) (n = 3,887). We then assessed whether the T1D GRS correctly classified young adults (diagnosed at 20-40 years of age, the age-group with the most diagnostic difficulty in clinical practice; n = 223) who progressed to severe insulin deficiency <3 years from diagnosis.
In the WTCCC, the T1D GRS, based on 30 T1D-associated risk variants, was highly discriminative of T1D and T2D (area under the curve AUC 0.88 95% CI 0.87-0.89; P < 0.0001), and the T2D GRS added little discrimination (AUC 0.89). A T1D GRS >0.280 (>50th centile in those with T1D) is indicative of T1D (50% sensitivity, 95% specificity). A low T1D GRS (<0.234, <5th centile T1D) is indicative of T2D (53% sensitivity, 95% specificity). Most discriminative ability was obtained from just nine single nucleotide polymorphisms (AUC 0.87). In young adults with diabetes, T1D GRS alone predicted progression to insulin deficiency (AUC 0.87 95% CI 0.82-0.92; P < 0.0001). T1D GRS, autoantibody status, and clinical features were independent and additive predictors of severe insulin deficiency (combined AUC 0.96 95% CI 0.94-0.99; P < 0.0001).
A T1D GRS can accurately identify young adults with diabetes who will require insulin treatment. This will be an important addition to correctly classifying individuals with diabetes when clinical features and autoimmune markers are equivocal.
Baseline HbA1c is a major predictor of response to glucose lowering therapy and therefore a potential confounder in studies aiming to identify other predictors. However, baseline adjustment may ...introduce error if the association between baseline HbA1c and response is substantially due to measurement error and regression to the mean. We aimed to determine whether studies of predictors of response should adjust for baseline HbA1c.
We assessed the relationship between baseline HbA1c and glycaemic response in 257 participants treated with GLP-1R agonists and assessed whether it reflected measurement error and regression to the mean using duplicate 'pre-baseline' HbA1c measurements not included in the response variable. In this cohort and an additional 2659 participants treated with sulfonylureas we assessed the relationship between covariates associated with baseline HbA1c and treatment response with and without baseline adjustment, and with a bias correction using pre-baseline HbA1c to adjust for the effects of error in baseline HbA1c.
Baseline HbA1c was a major predictor of response (R2 = 0.19,β = -0.44,p<0.001).The association between pre-baseline and response was similar suggesting the greater response at higher baseline HbA1cs is not mainly due to measurement error and subsequent regression to the mean. In unadjusted analysis in both cohorts, factors associated with baseline HbA1c were associated with response, however these associations were weak or absent after adjustment for baseline HbA1c. Bias correction did not substantially alter associations.
Adjustment for the baseline HbA1c measurement is a simple and effective way to reduce bias in studies of predictors of response to glucose lowering therapy.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Aims/hypothesis
Classically, type 1 diabetes is thought to proceed to absolute insulin deficiency. Recently developed ultrasensitive assays capable of detecting C-peptide under 5 pmol/l now allow ...very low levels of C-peptide to be detected in patients with long-standing type 1 diabetes. It is not known whether this low-level endogenous insulin secretion responds to physiological stimuli. We aimed to assess how commonly low-level detectable C-peptide occurs in long-duration type 1 diabetes and whether it responds to a meal stimulus.
Methods
We performed a mixed-meal tolerance test in 74 volunteers with long-duration (>5 years) type 1 diabetes, i.e. with age at diagnosis 16 (9–23) years (median interquartile range) and diabetes duration of 30 (19–41) years. We assessed fasting and stimulated serum C-peptide levels using an electrochemiluminescence assay (detection limit 3.3 pmol/l), and also the urinary C-peptide:creatinine ratio (UCPCR).
Results
Post-stimulation serum C-peptide was detectable at very low levels (>3.3 pmol/l) in 54 of 74 (73%) patients. In all patients with detectable serum C-peptide, C-peptide either increased (
n
= 43, 80%) or stayed the same (
n
= 11) in response to a meal, with no indication of levels falling (
p
< 0.0001). With increasing disease duration, absolute C-peptide levels fell although the numbers with detectable C-peptide remained high (68%, i.e. 25 of 37 patients with >30 years duration). Similar results were obtained for UCPCR.
Conclusions/interpretation
Most patients with long-duration type 1 diabetes continue to secrete very low levels of endogenous insulin, which increase after meals. This is consistent with the presence of a small number of still functional beta cells and implies that beta cells are either escaping immune attack or undergoing regeneration.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OBVAL, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
PDF
