Beverley M Shields1,2, Maggie Shepherd1,2, Michelle Hudson1, Timothy J McDonald1,3, Kevin Colclough4, Jaime Peters5, Bridget Knight1,2, Chris Hyde5, Sian Ellard1,4, Ewan R Pearson6, Andrew T Hattersley7,2. 1. Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, U.K. 2. NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, U.K. 3. Blood Sciences, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, U.K. 4. Molecular Genetics Diagnostic Laboratory, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, U.K. 5. Exeter Test Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, U.K. 6. Division of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, U.K. 7. Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, U.K. a.t.hattersley@exeter.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Monogenic diabetes, a young-onset form of diabetes, is often misdiagnosed as type 1 diabetes, resulting in unnecessary treatment with insulin. A screening approach for monogenic diabetes is needed to accurately select suitable patients for expensive diagnostic genetic testing. We used C-peptide and islet autoantibodies, highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for discriminating type 1 from non-type 1 diabetes, in a biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger, currently younger than 50 years, in two U.K. regions with existing high detection of monogenic diabetes. The biomarker screening pathway comprised three stages: 1) assessment of endogenous insulin secretion using urinary C-peptide/creatinine ratio (UCPCR); 2) if UCPCR was ≥0.2 nmol/mmol, measurement of GAD and IA2 islet autoantibodies; and 3) if negative for both autoantibodies, molecular genetic diagnostic testing for 35 monogenic diabetes subtypes. RESULTS: A total of 1,407 patients participated (1,365 with no known genetic cause, 34 with monogenic diabetes, and 8 with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes). A total of 386 out of 1,365 (28%) patients had a UCPCR ≥0.2 nmol/mmol, and 216 out of 386 (56%) were negative for GAD and IA2 and underwent molecular genetic testing. Seventeen new cases of monogenic diabetes were diagnosed (8 common Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young [Sanger sequencing] and 9 rarer causes [next-generation sequencing]) in addition to the 34 known cases (estimated prevalence of 3.6% [51/1,407] [95% CI 2.7-4.7%]). The positive predictive value was 20%, suggesting a 1-in-5 detection rate for the pathway. The negative predictive value was 99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes is an effective, cheap, and easily implemented approach to systematically screening all young-onset patients. The minimum prevalence of monogenic diabetes is 3.6% of patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger.
OBJECTIVE: Monogenic diabetes, a young-onset form of diabetes, is often misdiagnosed as type 1 diabetes, resulting in unnecessary treatment with insulin. A screening approach for monogenic diabetes is needed to accurately select suitable patients for expensive diagnostic genetic testing. We used C-peptide and islet autoantibodies, highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for discriminating type 1 from non-type 1 diabetes, in a biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger, currently younger than 50 years, in two U.K. regions with existing high detection of monogenic diabetes. The biomarker screening pathway comprised three stages: 1) assessment of endogenous insulin secretion using urinary C-peptide/creatinine ratio (UCPCR); 2) if UCPCR was ≥0.2 nmol/mmol, measurement of GAD and IA2 islet autoantibodies; and 3) if negative for both autoantibodies, molecular genetic diagnostic testing for 35 monogenic diabetes subtypes. RESULTS: A total of 1,407 patients participated (1,365 with no known genetic cause, 34 with monogenic diabetes, and 8 with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes). A total of 386 out of 1,365 (28%) patients had a UCPCR ≥0.2 nmol/mmol, and 216 out of 386 (56%) were negative for GAD and IA2 and underwent molecular genetic testing. Seventeen new cases of monogenic diabetes were diagnosed (8 common Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young [Sanger sequencing] and 9 rarer causes [next-generation sequencing]) in addition to the 34 known cases (estimated prevalence of 3.6% [51/1,407] [95% CI 2.7-4.7%]). The positive predictive value was 20%, suggesting a 1-in-5 detection rate for the pathway. The negative predictive value was 99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes is an effective, cheap, and easily implemented approach to systematically screening all young-onset patients. The minimum prevalence of monogenic diabetes is 3.6% of patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger.
Authors: Ewan R Pearson; Isabelle Flechtner; Pål R Njølstad; Maciej T Malecki; Sarah E Flanagan; Brian Larkin; Frances M Ashcroft; Iwar Klimes; Ethel Codner; Violeta Iotova; Annabelle S Slingerland; Julian Shield; Jean-Jacques Robert; Jens J Holst; Penny M Clark; Sian Ellard; Oddmund Søvik; Michel Polak; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-03 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Ewan R Pearson; Bryan J Starkey; Roy J Powell; Fiona M Gribble; Penny M Clark; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-10-18 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Maggie Shepherd; Beverley Shields; Suzanne Hammersley; Michelle Hudson; Timothy J McDonald; Kevin Colclough; Richard A Oram; Bridget Knight; Christopher Hyde; Julian Cox; Katherine Mallam; Christopher Moudiotis; Rebecca Smith; Barbara Fraser; Simon Robertson; Stephen Greene; Sian Ellard; Ewan R Pearson; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Gaya Thanabalasingham; Aparna Pal; Mary P Selwood; Christina Dudley; Karen Fisher; Polly J Bingley; Sian Ellard; Andrew J Farmer; Mark I McCarthy; Katharine R Owen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 19.112
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: 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
Authors: Kashyap A Patel; Michael N Weedon; Beverley M Shields; Ewan R Pearson; Andrew T Hattersley; Timothy J McDonald Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Beverley M Shields; Timothy J McDonald; Richard Oram; Anita Hill; Michelle Hudson; Pia Leete; Ewan R Pearson; Sarah J Richardson; Noel G Morgan; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 19.112