Maria J Redondo1, Brandon M Nathan2, Laura M Jacobsen3, Emily Sims4, Laura E Bocchino5,6, Alberto Pugliese7, Desmond A Schatz3, Mark A Atkinson3, Jay Skyler7, Jerry Palmer8, Susan Geyer5,9, Jay M Sosenko7. 1. Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. redondo@bcm.edu. 2. Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. University of Florida Diabetes Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 6. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL, USA. 7. Diabetes Research Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 8. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 9. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to compare characteristics of individuals identified in the peri-diagnostic range by Index60 (composite glucose and C-peptide measure) ≥2.00, 2 h OGTT glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l, or both. METHODS: We studied autoantibody-positive participants in the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study who, at their baseline OGTT, had 2 h blood glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and/or Index60 ≥2.00 (n = 354, median age = 11.2 years, age range = 1.7-46.6; 49% male, 83% non-Hispanic White). Type 1 diabetes-relevant characteristics (e.g., age, C-peptide, autoantibodies, BMI) were compared among three mutually exclusive groups: 2 h glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and Index60 <2.00 [Glu(+), n = 76], 2 h glucose <11.1 mmol/l and Index60 ≥2.00 [Ind(+), n = 113], or both 2 h glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and Index60 ≥2.00 [Glu(+)/Ind(+), n = 165]. RESULTS: Participants in Glu(+), vs those in Ind(+) or Glu(+)/Ind(+), were older (mean ages = 22.9, 11.8 and 14.7 years, respectively), had higher early (30-0 min) C-peptide response (1.0, 0.50 and 0.43 nmol/l), higher AUC C-peptide (2.33, 1.13 and 1.10 nmol/l), higher percentage of overweight/obesity (58%, 16% and 30%) (all comparisons, p < 0.0001), and a lower percentage of multiple autoantibody positivity (72%, 92% and 93%) (p < 0.001). OGTT-stimulated C-peptide and glucose patterns of Glu(+) differed appreciably from Ind(+) and Glu(+)/Ind(+). Progression to diabetes occurred in 61% (46/76) of Glu(+) and 63% (71/113) of Ind(+). Even though Index60 ≥2.00 was not a Pathway to Prevention diagnostic criterion, Ind(+) had a 4 year cumulative diabetes incidence of 95% (95% CI 86%, 98%). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Participants in the Ind(+) group had more typical characteristics of type 1 diabetes than participants in the Glu(+) did and were as likely to be diagnosed. However, unlike Glu(+) participants, Ind(+) participants were not identified at the baseline OGTT.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to compare characteristics of individuals identified in the peri-diagnostic range by Index60 (composite glucose and C-peptide measure) ≥2.00, 2 h OGTT glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l, or both. METHODS: We studied autoantibody-positive participants in the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study who, at their baseline OGTT, had 2 h blood glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and/or Index60 ≥2.00 (n = 354, median age = 11.2 years, age range = 1.7-46.6; 49% male, 83% non-Hispanic White). Type 1 diabetes-relevant characteristics (e.g., age, C-peptide, autoantibodies, BMI) were compared among three mutually exclusive groups: 2 h glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and Index60 <2.00 [Glu(+), n = 76], 2 h glucose <11.1 mmol/l and Index60 ≥2.00 [Ind(+), n = 113], or both 2 h glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and Index60 ≥2.00 [Glu(+)/Ind(+), n = 165]. RESULTS: Participants in Glu(+), vs those in Ind(+) or Glu(+)/Ind(+), were older (mean ages = 22.9, 11.8 and 14.7 years, respectively), had higher early (30-0 min) C-peptide response (1.0, 0.50 and 0.43 nmol/l), higher AUC C-peptide (2.33, 1.13 and 1.10 nmol/l), higher percentage of overweight/obesity (58%, 16% and 30%) (all comparisons, p < 0.0001), and a lower percentage of multiple autoantibody positivity (72%, 92% and 93%) (p < 0.001). OGTT-stimulated C-peptide and glucose patterns of Glu(+) differed appreciably from Ind(+) and Glu(+)/Ind(+). Progression to diabetes occurred in 61% (46/76) of Glu(+) and 63% (71/113) of Ind(+). Even though Index60 ≥2.00 was not a Pathway to Prevention diagnostic criterion, Ind(+) had a 4 year cumulative diabetes incidence of 95% (95% CI 86%, 98%). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Participants in the Ind(+) group had more typical characteristics of type 1 diabetes than participants in the Glu(+) did and were as likely to be diagnosed. However, unlike Glu(+) participants, Ind(+) participants were not identified at the baseline OGTT.
Entities:
Keywords:
C-peptide; Diagnosis; Glucose; Heterogeneity; Index60; Insulin resistance; Prediction; TrialNet; Type 1 diabetes; Type 2 diabetes
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: Maria J Redondo; Carmella Evans-Molina; Andrea K Steck; Mark A Atkinson; Jay Sosenko Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Asa K Davis; Stephanie N DuBose; Michael J Haller; Kellee M Miller; Linda A DiMeglio; Kathleen E Bethin; Robin S Goland; Ellen M Greenberg; David R Liljenquist; Andrew J Ahmann; Santica M Marcovina; Anne L Peters; Roy W Beck; Carla J Greenbaum Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Alexandra Fouts; Laura Pyle; Liping Yu; Dongmei Miao; Aaron Michels; Jeffrey Krischer; Jay Sosenko; Peter Gottlieb; Andrea K Steck Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Pia Leete; Roberto Mallone; Sarah J Richardson; Jay M Sosenko; Maria J Redondo; Carmella Evans-Molina Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Carla J Greenbaum; Craig A Beam; David Boulware; Stephen E Gitelman; Peter A Gottlieb; Kevan C Herold; John M Lachin; Paula McGee; Jerry P Palmer; Mark D Pescovitz; Heidi Krause-Steinrauf; Jay S Skyler; Jay M Sosenko Journal: Diabetes Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 9.337
Authors: Janelle A Noble; Ana Maria Valdes; Michael D Varney; Joyce A Carlson; Priscilla Moonsamy; Anna Lisa Fear; Julie A Lane; Eva Lavant; Rebecca Rappner; Anthony Louey; Patrick Concannon; Josyf C Mychaleckyj; Henry A Erlich Journal: Diabetes Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Jay M Sosenko; Jay S Skyler; Linda A DiMeglio; Craig A Beam; Jeffrey P Krischer; Carla J Greenbaum; David Boulware; Lisa E Rafkin; Della Matheson; Kevan C Herold; Jeffrey Mahon; Jerry P Palmer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Brandon M Nathan; Maria J Redondo; Heba Ismail; Laura Jacobsen; Emily K Sims; Jerry Palmer; Jay Skyler; Laura Bocchino; Susan Geyer; Jay M Sosenko Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Laura M Jacobsen; Brian N Bundy; Heba M Ismail; Mark Clements; Megan Warnock; Susan Geyer; Desmond A Schatz; Jay M Sosenko Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 6.134