Maggie Shepherd1,2, Beverley Shields3, Suzanne Hammersley2, Michelle Hudson2, Timothy J McDonald3,4, Kevin Colclough5, Richard A Oram3, Bridget Knight2, Christopher Hyde6, Julian Cox7, Katherine Mallam8, Christopher Moudiotis9, Rebecca Smith10, Barbara Fraser11, Simon Robertson8, Stephen Greene12, Sian Ellard3, Ewan R Pearson13, Andrew T Hattersley3. 1. Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, U.K. m.h.shepherd@exeter.ac.uk. 2. Exeter National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Facility, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, U.K. 3. Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, U.K. 4. Blood Sciences, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, U.K. 5. Molecular Genetics Laboratory, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, U.K. 6. Exeter Test Group, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, U.K. 7. Department of Paediatrics, Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust, Barnstaple, U.K. 8. Department of Paediatrics, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, U.K. 9. Department of Paediatrics, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, U.K. 10. Children & Young People's Outpatient Department, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, U.K. 11. Department of Paediatrics, South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Torquay, U.K. 12. Child Health, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, U.K. 13. Division of Cardiovascular & Diabetes Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, U.K.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Monogenic diabetes is rare but is an important diagnosis in pediatric diabetes clinics. These patients are often not identified as this relies on the recognition of key clinical features by an alert clinician. Biomarkers (islet autoantibodies and C-peptide) can assist in the exclusion of patients with type 1 diabetes and allow systematic testing that does not rely on clinical recognition. Our study aimed to establish the prevalence of monogenic diabetes in U.K. pediatric clinics using a systematic approach of biomarker screening and targeted genetic testing. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 808 patients (79.5% of the eligible population) <20 years of age with diabetes who were attending six pediatric clinics in South West England and Tayside, Scotland. Endogenous insulin production was measured using the urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR). C-peptide-positive patients (UCPCR ≥0.2 nmol/mmol) underwent islet autoantibody (GAD and IA2) testing, with patients who were autoantibody negative undergoing genetic testing for all 29 identified causes of monogenic diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 2.5% of patients (20 of 808 patients) (95% CI 1.6-3.9%) had monogenic diabetes (8 GCK, 5 HNF1A, 4 HNF4A, 1 HNF1B, 1 ABCC8, 1 INSR). The majority (17 of 20 patients) were managed without insulin treatment. A similar proportion of the population had type 2 diabetes (3.3%, 27 of 808 patients). CONCLUSIONS: This large systematic study confirms a prevalence of 2.5% of patients with monogenic diabetes who were <20 years of age in six U.K. clinics. This figure suggests that ∼50% of the estimated 875 U.K. pediatric patients with monogenic diabetes have still not received a genetic diagnosis. This biomarker screening pathway is a practical approach that can be used to identify pediatric patients who are most appropriate for genetic testing.
OBJECTIVE: Monogenic diabetes is rare but is an important diagnosis in pediatric diabetes clinics. These patients are often not identified as this relies on the recognition of key clinical features by an alert clinician. Biomarkers (islet autoantibodies and C-peptide) can assist in the exclusion of patients with type 1 diabetes and allow systematic testing that does not rely on clinical recognition. Our study aimed to establish the prevalence of monogenic diabetes in U.K. pediatric clinics using a systematic approach of biomarker screening and targeted genetic testing. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 808 patients (79.5% of the eligible population) <20 years of age with diabetes who were attending six pediatric clinics in South West England and Tayside, Scotland. Endogenous insulin production was measured using the urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR). C-peptide-positive patients (UCPCR ≥0.2 nmol/mmol) underwent islet autoantibody (GAD and IA2) testing, with patients who were autoantibody negative undergoing genetic testing for all 29 identified causes of monogenic diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 2.5% of patients (20 of 808 patients) (95% CI 1.6-3.9%) had monogenic diabetes (8 GCK, 5 HNF1A, 4 HNF4A, 1 HNF1B, 1 ABCC8, 1 INSR). The majority (17 of 20 patients) were managed without insulin treatment. A similar proportion of the population had type 2 diabetes (3.3%, 27 of 808 patients). CONCLUSIONS: This large systematic study confirms a prevalence of 2.5% of patients with monogenic diabetes who were <20 years of age in six U.K. clinics. This figure suggests that ∼50% of the estimated 875 U.K. pediatric patients with monogenic diabetes have still not received a genetic diagnosis. This biomarker screening pathway is a practical approach that can be used to identify pediatric patients who are most appropriate for genetic testing.
Authors: Maria E Craig; Craig Jefferies; Dana Dabelea; Naby Balde; Anju Seth; Kim C Donaghue Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Roopa Kanakatti Shankar; Catherine Pihoker; Lawrence M Dolan; Debra Standiford; Angela Badaru; Dana Dabelea; Beatriz Rodriguez; Mary Helen Black; Giuseppina Imperatore; Andrew Hattersley; Sian Ellard; Lisa K Gilliam Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: H U Irgens; J Molnes; B B Johansson; M Ringdal; T Skrivarhaug; D E Undlien; O Søvik; G Joner; A Molven; P R Njølstad Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: A Paul Lambert; Sian Ellard; Lisa I S Allen; Ian W Gallen; Kathleen M Gillespie; Polly J Bingley; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: T J McDonald; K Colclough; R Brown; B Shields; M Shepherd; P Bingley; A Williams; A T Hattersley; Sian Ellard Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Benjamin J Wheeler; Nicola Patterson; Donald R Love; Debbie Prosser; Paul Tomlinson; Barry J Taylor; Patrick Manning Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord Date: 2013-12-19
Authors: Rachel E J Besser; Beverley M Shields; Suzanne E Hammersley; Kevin Colclough; Timothy J McDonald; Zoe Gray; James J N Heywood; Timothy G Barrett; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2013-01-04 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: S Ellard; H Lango Allen; E De Franco; S E Flanagan; G Hysenaj; K Colclough; J A L Houghton; M Shepherd; A T Hattersley; M N Weedon; R Caswell Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: David T Broome; Kevin M Pantalone; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Louis H Philipson Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Shideh Majidi; Alexandra Fouts; Laura Pyle; Christina Chambers; Taylor Armstrong; Zhenyuan Wang; Sat Dev Batish; Georgeanna Klingensmith; Andrea K Steck Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: May Sanyoura; Laura Jacobsen; David Carmody; Daniela Del Gaudio; Gorka Alkorta-Aranburu; Kelly Arndt; Ying Hu; Frances Kobiernicki; Irina Kusmartseva; Mark A Atkinson; Louis H Philipson; Desmond Schatz; Martha Campbell-Thompson; Siri Atma W Greeley Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Silva Arslanian; Laure El Ghormli; Morey H Haymond; Christine L Chan; Steven D Chernausek; Rachelle G Gandica; Rose Gubitosi-Klug; Lynne L Levitsky; Maggie Siska; Steven M Willi Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 4.866