Search

Aims/hypothesis: The reason for the observed lower rate of islet autoantibody positivity in clinician-diagnosed adult-onset vs childhood-onset type 1 diabetes is not known. We aimed to explore this by assessing the genetic risk of type 1 diabetes in autoantibody-negative and -positive children and adults. Methods: We analysed GAD autoantibodies, insulinoma-2 antigen autoantibodies and zinc transporter-8 autoantibodies (ZnT8A) and measured type 1 diabetes genetic risk by genotyping 30 type 1 diabetes-associated variants at diagnosis in 1814 individuals with clinician-diagnosed type 1 diabetes (1112 adult-onset, 702 childhood-onset). We compared the overall type 1 diabetes genetic risk score (T1DGRS) and non-HLA and HLA (DR3-DQ2, DR4-DQ8 and DR15-DQ6) components with autoantibody status in those with adult-onset and childhood-onset diabetes. We also measured the T1DGRS in 1924 individuals with type 2 diabetes from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium to represent non-autoimmune diabetes control participants. Results: The T1DGRS was similar in autoantibody-negative and autoantibody-positive clinician-diagnosed childhood-onset type 1 diabetes (mean [SD] 0.274 [0.034] vs 0.277 [0.026], p=0.4). In contrast, the T1DGRS in autoantibody-negative adult-onset type 1 diabetes was lower than that in autoantibody-positive adult-onset type 1 diabetes (mean [SD] 0.243 [0.036] vs 0.271 [0.026], p<0.0001) but higher than that in type 2 diabetes (mean [SD] 0.229 [0.034], p<0.0001). Autoantibody-negative adults were more likely to have the more protective HLA DR15-DQ6 genotype (15% vs 3%, p<0.0001), were less likely to have the high-risk HLA DR3-DQ2/DR4-DQ8 genotype (6% vs 19%, p<0.0001) and had a lower non-HLA T1DGRS (p<0.0001) than autoantibody-positive adults. In contrast to children, autoantibody-negative adults were more likely to be male (75% vs 59%), had a higher BMI (27 vs 24 kg/m2) and were less likely to have other autoimmune conditions (2% vs 10%) than autoantibody-positive adults (all p<0.0001). In both adults and children, type 1 diabetes genetic risk was unaffected by the number of autoantibodies (p>0.3). These findings, along with the identification of seven misclassified adults with monogenic diabetes among autoantibody-negative adults and the results of a sensitivity analysis with and without measurement of ZnT8A, suggest that the intermediate type 1 diabetes genetic risk in autoantibody-negative adults is more likely to be explained by the inclusion of misclassified non-autoimmune diabetes (estimated to represent 67% of all antibody-negative adults, 95% CI 61%, 73%) than by the presence of unmeasured autoantibodies or by a discrete form of diabetes. When these estimated individuals with non-autoimmune diabetes were adjusted for, the prevalence of autoantibody positivity in adult-onset type 1 diabetes was similar to that in children (93% vs 91%, p=0.4). Conclusions/interpretation: The inclusion of non-autoimmune diabetes is the most likely explanation for the observed lower rate of autoantibody positivity in clinician-diagnosed adult-onset type 1 diabetes. Our data support the utility of islet autoantibody measurement in clinician-suspected adult-onset type 1 diabetes in routine clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: A key unanswered question in type 1 diabetes is whether beta cells initiate their own destruction or are victims of an aberrant immune response (beta cell suicide or homicide?). To investigate this, we assessed islet autoantibodies in individuals with congenital beta cell defects causing neonatal diabetes mellitus (NDM). Methods: We measured autoantibodies to GAD (GADA), islet antigen-2 (IA-2A) and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8A) in 242 individuals with NDM (median age diagnosed 1.8 months [IQR 0.39–2.9 months]; median age collected 4.6 months [IQR 1.8–27.6 months]; median diabetes duration 2 months [IQR 0.6–23 months]), including 75 whose NDM resulted from severe beta cell endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. As a control cohort we also tested samples from 69 diabetes-free individuals (median age collected 9.9 months [IQR 9.0–48.6 months]) for autoantibodies. Results: We found low prevalence of islet autoantibodies in individuals with monogenic NDM; 13/242 (5.4% [95% CI 2.9, 9.0%]) had detectable GADA, IA-2A and/or ZnT8A. This was similar to the proportion in the control participants who did not have diabetes (1/69 positive [1.4%, 95% CI 0.03, 7.8%], p=0.3). Importantly, monogenic individuals with beta cell ER stress had a similar rate of GADA/IA-2A/ZnT8A positivity to non-ER stress aetiologies (2.7% [95% CI 0.3, 9.3%] vs 6.6% [95% CI 3.3, 11.5%] p=0.4). We observed no association between islet autoimmunity and genetic risk, age at testing (including 30 individuals >10 years at testing) or diabetes duration (p>0.4 for all). Conclusions/interpretation: Our data support the hypothesis that beta cell stress/dysfunction alone does not lead to the production of islet autoantibodies, even in the context of high-risk HLA types. This suggests that additional factors are required to trigger an autoimmune response towards beta cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: Current clinical guidelines for childhood-onset monogenic diabetes outside infancy are mainly focused on identifying and testing for dominantly inherited, predominantly MODY genes. There are no systematic studies of the recessively inherited causes of monogenic diabetes that are likely to be more common in populations with high rates of consanguinity. We aimed to determine the contribution of recessive causes of monogenic diabetes in paediatric diabetes clinics and to identify clinical criteria by which to select individuals for recessive monogenic diabetes testing. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 1093 children from seven paediatric diabetes clinics across Turkey (a population with high rates of consanguinity). We undertook genetic testing of 50 known dominant and recessive causes of monogenic diabetes for 236 children at low risk of type 1 diabetes. As a comparison, we used monogenic diabetes cases from UK paediatric diabetes clinics (a population with low rates of consanguinity). Results: Thirty-four children in the Turkish cohort had monogenic diabetes, equating to a minimal prevalence of 3.1%, similar to that in the UK cohort (p = 0.40). Forty-one per cent (14/34) had autosomal recessive causes in contrast to 1.6% (2/122) in the UK monogenic diabetes cohort (p < 0.0001). All conventional criteria for identifying monogenic diabetes (parental diabetes, not requiring insulin treatment, HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol [≤7.5%] and a composite clinical probability of MODY >10%) assisted the identification of the dominant (all p ≤ 0.0003) but not recessive cases (all p ≥ 0.2) in Turkey. The presence of certain non-autoimmune extra-pancreatic features greatly assisted the identification of recessive (p < 0.0001, OR 66.9) but not dominant cases. Conclusions/interpretation: Recessively inherited mutations are a common cause of monogenic diabetes in populations with high rates of consanguinity. Present MODY-focused genetic testing strategies do not identify affected individuals. To detect all cases of monogenic paediatric diabetes, it is crucial that recessive genes are included in genetic panels and that children are selected for testing if they have certain non-autoimmune extra-pancreatic features in addition to current criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: Diabetes diagnosed at <6 months of age is usually monogenic. However, 10–15% of affected infants do not have a pathogenic variant in one of the 26 known neonatal diabetes genes. We characterised infants diagnosed at <6 months of age without a pathogenic variant to assess whether polygenic type 1 diabetes could arise at early ages. Methods: We studied 166 infants diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at <6 months of age in whom pathogenic variants in all 26 known genes had been excluded and compared them with infants with monogenic neonatal diabetes (n = 164) or children with type 1 diabetes diagnosed at 6–24 months of age (n = 152). We assessed the type 1 diabetes genetic risk score (T1D-GRS), islet autoantibodies, C-peptide and clinical features. Results: We found an excess of infants with high T1D-GRS: 38% (63/166) had a T1D-GRS >95th centile of healthy individuals, whereas 5% (8/166) would be expected if all were monogenic (p < 0.0001). Individuals with a high T1D-GRS had a similar rate of autoantibody positivity to that seen in individuals with type 1 diabetes diagnosed at 6–24 months of age (41% vs 58%, p = 0.2), and had markedly reduced C-peptide levels (median <3 pmol/l within 1 year of diagnosis), reflecting rapid loss of insulin secretion. These individuals also had reduced birthweights (median z score −0.89), which were lowest in those diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at <3 months of age (median z score −1.98). Conclusions/interpretation: We provide strong evidence that type 1 diabetes can present before the age of 6 months based on individuals with this extremely early-onset diabetes subtype having the classic features of childhood type 1 diabetes: high genetic risk, autoimmunity and rapid beta cell loss. The early-onset association with reduced birthweight raises the possibility that for some individuals there was reduced insulin secretion in utero. Comprehensive genetic testing for all neonatal diabetes genes remains essential for all individuals diagnosed with diabetes at <6 months of age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: It is unclear whether type 1 diabetes is a single disease or if endotypes exist. Our aim was to use a unique collection of pancreas samples recovered soon after disease onset to resolve this issue. Methods: Immunohistological analysis was used to determine the distribution of proinsulin and insulin in the islets of pancreas samples recovered soon after type 1 diabetes onset (<2 years) from young people diagnosed at age <7 years, 7–12 years and ≥13 years. The patterns were correlated with the insulitis profiles in the inflamed islets of the same groups of individuals. C-peptide levels and the proinsulin:C-peptide ratio were measured in the circulation of a cohort of living patients with longer duration of disease but who were diagnosed in these same age ranges. Results: Distinct patterns of proinsulin localisation were seen in the islets of people with recent-onset type 1 diabetes, which differed markedly between children diagnosed at <7 years and those diagnosed at ≥13 years. Proinsulin processing was aberrant in most residual insulin-containing islets of the younger group but this was much less evident in the group ≥13 years (p < 0.0001). Among all individuals (including children in the middle [7–12 years] range) aberrant proinsulin processing correlated with the assigned immune cell profiles defined by analysis of the lymphocyte composition of islet infiltrates. C-peptide levels were much lower in individuals diagnosed at <7 years than in those diagnosed at ≥13 years (median <3 pmol/l, IQR <3 to <3 vs 34.5 pmol/l, IQR <3–151; p < 0.0001), while the median proinsulin:C-peptide ratio was increased in those with age of onset <7 years compared with people diagnosed aged ≥13 years (0.18, IQR 0.10–0.31) vs 0.01, IQR 0.009–0.10 pmol/l; p < 0.0001). Conclusions/interpretation: Among those with type 1 diabetes diagnosed under the age of 30 years, there are histologically distinct endotypes that correlate with age at diagnosis. Recognition of such differences should inform the design of future immunotherapeutic interventions designed to arrest disease progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: Treatment change following a genetic diagnosis of MODY is frequently indicated, but little is known about the factors predicting future treatment success. We therefore conducted the first prospective study to determine the impact of a genetic diagnosis on individuals with GCK-, HNF1A- or HNF4A-MODY in the UK, and to identify clinical characteristics predicting treatment success (i.e. HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol [≤7.5%]) with the recommended treatment at 2 years.Methods: This was an observational, prospective, non-selective study of individuals referred to the Exeter Molecular Genetic Laboratory for genetic testing from December 2010 to December 2012. Individuals from the UK with GCK- or HNF1A/HNF4A-MODY who were not on recommended treatment at the time of genetic diagnosis, and who were diagnosed below the age of 30 years and were currently aged less than 50 years, were eligible to participate.Results: A total of 44 of 58 individuals (75.9%) changed treatment following their genetic diagnosis. Eight individuals diagnosed with GCK-MODY stopped all diabetes medication without experiencing any change in HbA1c (49.5 mmol/mol [6.6%] both before the genetic diagnosis and at a median of 1.25 years’ follow-up without treatment, p = 0.88). A total of 36 of 49 individuals (73.5%) diagnosed with HNF1A/HNF4A-MODY changed treatment; however, of the 21 of these individuals who were being managed with diet or sulfonylurea alone at 2 years, only 13 (36.1% of the population that changed treatment) had an HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol (≤7.5%). These individuals had a shorter diabetes duration (median 4.6 vs 18.1 years), lower HbA1c (58 vs 73 mmol/mol [7.5% vs 8.8%]) and lower BMI (median 24.2 vs 26.0 kg/m2) at the time of genetic diagnosis, compared with individuals (n = 23/36) with an HbA1c >58 mmol/mol (>7.5%) (or <58 mmol/mol [<7.5%] on additional treatment) at the 2 year follow-up. Overall, 64% (7/11) individuals with a diabetes duration of ≤11 years and an HbA1c of ≤69 mmol/mol (≤8.5%) at time of the genetic test achieved good glycaemic control (HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol [≤7.5%]) with diet or sulfonylurea alone at 2 years, compared with no participants with a diabetes duration of >11 years and an HbA1c of >69 mmol/mol (>8.5%) at the time of genetic diagnosis.Conclusions/interpretation: In participants with GCK-MODY, treatment cessation was universally successful, with no change in HbA1c at follow-up. In those with HNF1A/HNF4A-MODY, a shorter diabetes duration, lower HbA1c and lower BMI at genetic diagnosis predicted successful treatment with sulfonylurea/diet alone, supporting the need for early genetic diagnosis and treatment change. Our study suggests that, in individuals with HNF1A/HNF4A-MODY with a longer duration of diabetes (>11 years) at time of genetic test, rather than ceasing current treatment, a sulfonylurea should be added to existing therapy, particularly in those who are overweight or obese and have a high HbA1c. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]