Polly J Bingley1, Lisa E Rafkin2, Della Matheson2, Andrea K Steck3, Liping Yu3, Courtney Henderson4, Craig A Beam5, David C Boulware4. 1. 1 School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol , Bristol, United Kingdom . 2. 2 Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Miami , Miami, Florida. 3. 3 Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora, Colorado. 4. 4 Division of Informatics and Biostatistics, University of South Florida , Tampa, Florida. 5. 5 Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Michigan Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine , Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Islet autoantibody testing provides the basis for assessment of risk of progression to type 1 diabetes. We set out to determine the feasibility and acceptability of dried capillary blood spot-based screening to identify islet autoantibody-positive relatives potentially eligible for inclusion in prevention trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dried blood spot (DBS) and venous samples were collected from 229 relatives participating in the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study. Both samples were tested for glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet antigen 2, and zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies, and venous samples were additionally tested for insulin autoantibodies and islet cell antibodies. We defined multiple autoantibody positive as two or more autoantibodies in venous serum and DBS screen positive if one or more autoantibodies were detected. Participant questionnaires compared the sample collection methods. RESULTS: Of 44 relatives who were multiple autoantibody positive in venous samples, 42 (95.5%) were DBS screen positive, and DBS accurately detected 145 of 147 autoantibody-negative relatives (98.6%). Capillary blood sampling was perceived as more painful than venous blood draw, but 60% of participants would prefer initial screening using home fingerstick with clinic visits only required if autoantibodies were found. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary blood sampling could facilitate screening for type 1 diabetes prevention studies.
BACKGROUND: Islet autoantibody testing provides the basis for assessment of risk of progression to type 1 diabetes. We set out to determine the feasibility and acceptability of dried capillary blood spot-based screening to identify islet autoantibody-positive relatives potentially eligible for inclusion in prevention trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dried blood spot (DBS) and venous samples were collected from 229 relatives participating in the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study. Both samples were tested for glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet antigen 2, and zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies, and venous samples were additionally tested for insulin autoantibodies and islet cell antibodies. We defined multiple autoantibody positive as two or more autoantibodies in venous serum and DBS screen positive if one or more autoantibodies were detected. Participant questionnaires compared the sample collection methods. RESULTS: Of 44 relatives who were multiple autoantibody positive in venous samples, 42 (95.5%) were DBS screen positive, and DBS accurately detected 145 of 147 autoantibody-negative relatives (98.6%). Capillary blood sampling was perceived as more painful than venous blood draw, but 60% of participants would prefer initial screening using home fingerstick with clinic visits only required if autoantibodies were found. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary blood sampling could facilitate screening for type 1 diabetes prevention studies.
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: Ezio Bonifacio; Liping Yu; Alastair K Williams; George S Eisenbarth; Polly J Bingley; Santica M Marcovina; Kerstin Adler; Anette G Ziegler; Patricia W Mueller; Desmond A Schatz; Jeffrey P Krischer; Michael W Steffes; Beena Akolkar Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Liping Yu; David C Boulware; Craig A Beam; John C Hutton; Janet M Wenzlau; Carla J Greenbaum; Polly J Bingley; Jeffrey P Krischer; Jay M Sosenko; Jay S Skyler; George S Eisenbarth; Jeffrey L Mahon Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: M Angelyn Bethel; Hermione C Price; Harald Sourij; Sarah White; Ruth L Coleman; Arne Ring; Irene E C Kennedy; Lynne Tucker; Rury R Holman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Y Liu; L E Rafkin; D Matheson; C Henderson; D Boulware; R E J Besser; C Ferrara; L Yu; A K Steck; P J Bingley Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Kelli S Hall; Shelby T Rentmeester; Yuan Zhao; Allison N Hankus; Yidan Pei; Halley Em Riley; Candace McCloud; Bradley D Pearce Journal: Front Womens Health Date: 2020-02-03
Authors: Polly J Bingley; Diane K Wherrett; Ann Shultz; Lisa E Rafkin; Mark A Atkinson; Carla J Greenbaum Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kimber M Simmons; Aimon K Alkanani; Kristen A McDaniel; Christopher Goyne; Dongmei Miao; Zhiyuan Zhao; Liping Yu; Aaron W Michels Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lisa C Martial; Rob E Aarnoutse; Michiel F Schreuder; Stefanie S Henriet; Roger J M Brüggemann; Manuela A Joore Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anette-G Ziegler; Ezio Bonifacio; Alvin C Powers; John A Todd; Leonard C Harrison; Mark A Atkinson Journal: Diabetes Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 9.461