OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether differing autoantibody screening criteria for type 1 diabetes (T1D) prevention trials result in different baseline metabolic profiles of those who screen positive. METHODS: Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) participants were screened for islet cell autoantibodies, whereas TrialNet Natural History Study (TNNHS) participants were screened for biochemical autoantibodies. In both studies, those determined to be autoantibody positive underwent baseline oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in which glucose and C-peptide were measured. RESULTS: The percentage of those with an OGTT in the diabetic range was higher among the DPT-1 participants (10.0% of 956 vs. 6.4% of 645, p < 0.01). In a logistic regression analysis with adjustments for age and gender, the difference persisted (p < 0.01). Among those in the non-diabetic range (n = 860 for DPT-1 and n = 604 for the TNNHS), glucose levels were similar at all time points, except for higher fasting glucose levels in the TNNHS participants (p < 0.001). There was a higher percentage of impaired fasting glucose (IFG) in the TNNHS participants (10.9 vs. 6.7%, p < 0.01); however, with adjustments for age and gender, there was no longer a significant difference. There was no significant difference in the percentages with impaired glucose tolerance. C-peptide levels were much lower in the DPT-1 cohort at all OGTT time points (p < 0.001 for all). DISCUSSION: Differing criteria for autoantibody screening can result in marked differences in the baseline metabolic profiles of prospective participants of T1D prevention trials.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether differing autoantibody screening criteria for type 1 diabetes (T1D) prevention trials result in different baseline metabolic profiles of those who screen positive. METHODS:Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) participants were screened for islet cell autoantibodies, whereas TrialNet Natural History Study (TNNHS) participants were screened for biochemical autoantibodies. In both studies, those determined to be autoantibody positive underwent baseline oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in which glucose and C-peptide were measured. RESULTS: The percentage of those with an OGTT in the diabetic range was higher among the DPT-1 participants (10.0% of 956 vs. 6.4% of 645, p < 0.01). In a logistic regression analysis with adjustments for age and gender, the difference persisted (p < 0.01). Among those in the non-diabetic range (n = 860 for DPT-1 and n = 604 for the TNNHS), glucose levels were similar at all time points, except for higher fasting glucose levels in the TNNHS participants (p < 0.001). There was a higher percentage of impaired fasting glucose (IFG) in the TNNHS participants (10.9 vs. 6.7%, p < 0.01); however, with adjustments for age and gender, there was no longer a significant difference. There was no significant difference in the percentages with impaired glucose tolerance. C-peptide levels were much lower in the DPT-1 cohort at all OGTT time points (p < 0.001 for all). DISCUSSION: Differing criteria for autoantibody screening can result in marked differences in the baseline metabolic profiles of prospective participants of T1D prevention trials.
Authors: Jeffrey L Mahon; Jay M Sosenko; Lisa Rafkin-Mervis; Heidi Krause-Steinrauf; John M Lachin; Clinton Thompson; Polly J Bingley; Ezio Bonifacio; Jerry P Palmer; George S Eisenbarth; Joseph Wolfsdorf; Jay S Skyler Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: P Kulmala; K Savola; J S Petersen; P Vähäsalo; J Karjalainen; T Löppönen; T Dyrberg; H K Akerblom; M Knip Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jay S Skyler; Jeffrey P Krischer; Joseph Wolfsdorf; Catherine Cowie; Jerry P Palmer; Carla Greenbaum; David Cuthbertson; Lisa E Rafkin-Mervis; H Peter Chase; Ellen Leschek Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jay M Sosenko; Jeffrey P Krischer; Jerry P Palmer; Jeffrey Mahon; Catherine Cowie; Carla J Greenbaum; David Cuthbertson; John M Lachin; Jay S Skyler Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-11-13 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Antoinette Moran; David R Jacobs; Julia Steinberger; Lyn M Steffen; James S Pankow; Ching-Ping Hong; Alan R Sinaiko Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-04-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christine Ferrara-Cook; Susan Michelle Geyer; Carmella Evans-Molina; Ingrid M Libman; Dorothy J Becker; Stephen E Gitelman; Maria Jose Redondo Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: David A Baidal; Megan Warnock; Ping Xu; Susan Geyer; Jennifer B Marks; Antoinette Moran; Jay Sosenko; Carmella Evans-Molina Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 6.134
Authors: Farah A Meah; Linda A DiMeglio; Carla J Greenbaum; Janice S Blum; Jay M Sosenko; Alberto Pugliese; Susan Geyer; Ping Xu; Carmella Evans-Molina Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Carmella Evans-Molina; Emily K Sims; Linda A DiMeglio; Heba M Ismail; Andrea K Steck; Jerry P Palmer; Jeffrey P Krischer; Susan Geyer; Ping Xu; Jay M Sosenko Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-08-09
Authors: Christine Therese Ferrara; Susan Michelle Geyer; Yuk-Fun Liu; Carmella Evans-Molina; Ingrid M Libman; Rachel Besser; Dorothy J Becker; Henry Rodriguez; Antoinette Moran; Stephen E Gitelman; Maria J Redondo Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jay M Sosenko; Jay S Skyler; Jeffrey Mahon; Jeffrey P Krischer; Carla J Greenbaum; Lisa E Rafkin; Craig A Beam; David C Boulware; Della Matheson; David Cuthbertson; Kevan C Herold; George Eisenbarth; Jerry P Palmer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Brandon M Nathan; David Boulware; Susan Geyer; Mark A Atkinson; Peter Colman; Robin Goland; William Russell; John M Wentworth; Darrell M Wilson; Carmella Evans-Molina; Diane Wherrett; Jay S Skyler; Antoinette Moran; Jay M Sosenko Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 19.112