Progression likelihood score identifies substages of presymptomatic type 1 diabetes in childhood public health screening

[Early Detection Of Type 1 Diabetes By Islet Autoantibody Screening: A Position Paper Of The Fr1daplex Project Leaders And Training Centres, Bvkj Bavaria And Paednetz (Registered) Bavaria]

This position paper is based on the authors' many years of clinical experience and basic science research on the diagnosis and treatment of children and adolescents with a presymptomatic early stage of type 1 diabetes. The benefits as well as potential disadvantages of early detection of type 1 diabetes by islet autoantibody screening are critically discussed. In addition, the perspectives of delaying the onset of the clinical metabolic disease through treatment with teplizumab are addressed. Today, we see the chance for a relevant improvement in therapeutic options and life perspectives of affected children and adolescents. Important next steps for the implementation of islet autoantibody screening in Germany are the training of pediatricians who should inform families about the screening, establishment of a few transregional laboratories that carry out the test, and expansion of regional capacities for the training and care of children with an early stage of type 1 diabetes.

Prediction of progression to type 1 diabetes with dynamic biomarkers and risk scores

Identifying biomarkers of functional β-cell loss is an important step in the risk stratification of type 1 diabetes. Genetic risk scores (GRS), generated by profiling an array of single nucleotide polymorphisms, are a widely used type 1 diabetes risk-prediction tool. Type 1 diabetes screening studies have relied on a combination of biochemical (autoantibody) and GRS screening methodologies for identifying individuals at high-risk of type 1 diabetes. A limitation of these screening tools is that the presence of autoantibodies marks the initiation of β-cell loss, and is therefore not the best biomarker of progression to early-stage type 1 diabetes. GRS, on the other hand, represents a static biomarker offering a single risk score over an individual's lifetime. In this Personal View, we explore the challenges and opportunities of static and dynamic biomarkers in the prediction of progression to type 1 diabetes. We discuss future directions wherein newer dynamic risk scores could be used to predict type 1 diabetes risk, assess the efficacy of new and emerging drugs to retard, or prevent type 1 diabetes, and possibly replace or further enhance the predictive ability offered by static biomarkers, such as GRS.

Consensus guidance for monitoring individuals with islet autoantibody-positive pre-stage 3 type 1 diabetes

Given the proven benefits of screening to reduce diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) likelihood at the time of stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis, and emerging availability of therapy to delay disease progression, type 1 diabetes screening programmes are being increasingly emphasised. Once broadly implemented, screening initiatives will identify significant numbers of islet autoantibody-positive (IAb+) children and adults who are at risk of (confirmed single IAb+) or living with (multiple IAb+) early-stage (stage 1 and stage 2) type 1 diabetes. These individuals will need monitoring for disease progression; much of this care will happen in non-specialised settings. To inform this monitoring, JDRF in conjunction with international experts and societies developed consensus guidance. Broad advice from this guidance includes the following: (1) partnerships should be fostered between endocrinologists and primary-care providers to care for people who are IAb+; (2) when people who are IAb+ are initially identified there is a need for confirmation using a second sample; (3) single IAb+ individuals are at lower risk of progression than multiple IAb+ individuals; (4) individuals with early-stage type 1 diabetes should have periodic medical monitoring, including regular assessments of glucose levels, regular education about symptoms of diabetes and DKA, and psychosocial support; (5) interested people with stage 2 type 1 diabetes should be offered trial participation or approved therapies; and (6) all health professionals involved in monitoring and care of individuals with type 1 diabetes have a responsibility to provide education. The guidance also emphasises significant unmet needs for further research on early-stage type 1 diabetes to increase the rigour of future recommendations and inform clinical care.

Islet autoantibodies as precision diagnostic tools to characterize heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Islet autoantibodies form the foundation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis and staging, but heterogeneity exists in T1D development and presentation. We hypothesized that autoantibodies can identify heterogeneity before, at, and after T1D diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed PubMed and EMBASE databases (6/14/2022) assessing 10 years of original research examining relationships between autoantibodies and heterogeneity before, at, after diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies in individuals at-risk or within 1 year of T1D diagnosis. A critical appraisal checklist tool for cohort studies was modified and used for risk of bias assessment.

RESULTS

Here we show that 152 studies that met extraction criteria most commonly characterized heterogeneity before diagnosis (91/152). Autoantibody type/target was most frequently examined, followed by autoantibody number. Recurring themes included correlations of autoantibody number, type, and titers with progression, differing phenotypes based on order of autoantibody seroconversion, and interactions with age and genetics. Only 44% specifically described autoantibody assay standardization program participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence most strongly supports the application of autoantibody features to more precisely define T1D before diagnosis. Our findings support continued use of pre-clinical staging paradigms based on autoantibody number and suggest that additional autoantibody features, particularly in relation to age and genetic risk, could offer more precise stratification. To improve reproducibility and applicability of autoantibody-based precision medicine in T1D, we propose a methods checklist for islet autoantibody-based manuscripts which includes use of precision medicine MeSH terms and participation in autoantibody standardization workshops.

Feasibility and Validity of In-Home Self-Collected Capillary Blood Spot Screening for Type 1 Diabetes Risk

Aims: Self-collection of a blood sample for autoantibody testing has potential to facilitate screening for type 1 diabetes risk. We sought to determine the feasibility and acceptability of this approach and the performance of downstream antibody assays. Methods: People living with type 1 diabetes and their family members (N = 97) provided paired capillary blood spot and serum samples collected, respectively, by themselves and a health worker. They provided feedback on the ease, convenience, and painfulness of blood spot collection. Islet antibodies were measured in blood spots by antibody detection by agglutination PCR (ADAP) or multiplex enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA), and in serum by radioimmunoassay (RIA) or ELISA. Results: Using serum RIA and ELISA to define antibody status, 50 antibody-negative (Abneg) and 47 antibody-positive (Abpos) participants enrolled, of whom 43 and 47, respectively, returned testable blood spot samples. The majority indicated that self-collection was easier, more convenient, and less painful than formal venesection. The sensitivity and specificity for detection of Abpos by blood spot were, respectively, 85% and 98% for ADAP and 87% and 100% for multiplex ELISA. The specificities by ADAP for each of the four antigen specificities ranged from 98% to 100% and areas under the receiver operator curve from 0.841 to 0.986. Conclusions: Self-collected blood spot sampling is preferred over venesection by research participants. ADAP and multiplex ELISA are highly specific assays for islet antibodies in blood spots with acceptable performance for use alone or in combination to facilitate screening for type 1 diabetes risk. Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12620000510943.

Screening and Prevention of Type 1 Diabetes: Where Are We?

A diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and the subsequent requirement for exogenous insulin treatment is associated with considerable acute and chronic morbidity and a substantial effect on patient quality of life. Importantly, a large body of work suggests that early identification of presymptomatic T1D can accurately predict clinical disease, and when paired with education and monitoring, can yield improved health outcomes. Furthermore, a growing cadre of effective disease-modifying therapies provides the potential to alter the natural history of early stages of T1D. In this mini review, we highlight prior work that has led to the current landscape of T1D screening and prevention, as well as challenges and next steps moving into the future of these rapidly evolving areas of patient care.

Historical Insights and Current Perspectives on the Diagnosis and Management of Presymptomatic Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: The article provides practical guidance for (1) interpreting and confirming islet autoantibody screening results for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and (2) follow-up of individuals with early stages of T1D with the goal of ensuring medical safety and providing patients and their families with an assessment of risk for progression to a clinical diagnosis of T1D. Research Design and Methods: We used an explicit a priori methodology to identify areas of agreement and disagreement in how to manage patients with early T1D. We used a modified Delphi method, which is a systematic, iterative approach to identifying consensus. We developed a list of topic questions, ranked them by importance, and developed consensus statements based on available evidence and expert opinion around each of the 30 topic questions consistently ranked as being most important. Results: Consensus statements for screening and monitoring are supported with figures proposing an algorithm for confirmation of T1D diagnosis and management of early T1D until clinical diagnosis. Conclusions: Disseminating and increasing knowledge related to how to interpret T1D screening tests, confirm early T1D diagnosis and monitor for medical safety and clinical disease risk prediction is critically important as there are currently no clinical recommendations. Published guidance will promote better management of T1D screening-detected individuals.

Children diagnosed with presymptomatic type 1 diabetes through public health screening have milder diabetes at clinical manifestation

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to determine whether disease severity was reduced at onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes in children previously diagnosed with presymptomatic type 1 diabetes in a population-based screening programme for islet autoantibodies.

METHODS

Clinical data obtained at diagnosis of stage 3 type 1 diabetes were evaluated in 128 children previously diagnosed with presymptomatic early-stage type 1 diabetes between 2015 and 2022 in the Fr1da study and compared with data from 736 children diagnosed with incident type 1 diabetes between 2009 and 2018 at a similar age in the DiMelli study without prior screening.

RESULTS

At the diagnosis of stage 3 type 1 diabetes, children with a prior early-stage diagnosis had lower median HbA1c (51 mmol/mol vs 91 mmol/mol [6.8% vs 10.5%], p<0.001), lower median fasting glucose (5.3 mmol/l vs 7.2 mmol/l, p<0.05) and higher median fasting C-peptide (0.21 nmol/l vs 0.10 nmol/l, p<0.001) compared with children without previous early-stage diagnosis. Fewer participants with prior early-stage diagnosis had ketonuria (22.2% vs 78.4%, p<0.001) or required insulin treatment (72.3% vs 98.1%, p<0.05) and only 2.5% presented with diabetic ketoacidosis at diagnosis of stage 3 type 1 diabetes. Outcomes in children with a prior early-stage diagnosis were not associated with a family history of type 1 diabetes or diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. A milder clinical presentation was observed in children who participated in education and monitoring after early-stage diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Diagnosis of presymptomatic type 1 diabetes in children followed by education and monitoring improved clinical presentation at the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes.

A perspective on treating type 1 diabetes mellitus before insulin is needed

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a progressive autoimmune disease that starts long before a clinical diagnosis is made. The American Diabetes Association recognizes three stages: stage 1 (normoglycaemic and positive for autoantibodies to β-cell antigens); stage 2 (asymptomatic with dysglycaemia); and stage 3, which is defined by glucose levels consistent with the definition of diabetes mellitus. This Perspective focuses on the management of the proportion of individuals with early stage 3 T1DM who do not immediately require insulin; a stage we propose should be termed stage 3a. To date, this period of non-insulin-dependent T1DM has been largely unrecognized. Importantly, it represents a window of opportunity for intervention, as remaining at this stage might delay the need for insulin by months or years. Extending the insulin-free period and/or avoiding unnecessary insulin therapy are important goals, as there is no risk of hypoglycaemia during this period and the adherence burden on patients of glycaemic monitoring and daily adjustments for diet and exercise is substantially reduced. Recognizing the pressing need for guidance on adequate management of children and adults with stage 3a T1DM, we present our perspective on the subject, which needs to be tested in formal and adequately powered clinical trials.

Clinical Significance of Diabetes-Mellitus-Associated Antibodies in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a canonical autoimmune disease that shares numerous risk factors with diabetes mellitus (DM). The production of autoantibodies is a characteristic feature in both diseases. To determine the frequency and specificity of DM-related antibodies (DMab) in RA patients and to study whether DMab associates with new DM cases in RA patients, we measured DMab defined as IgG against glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA), tyrosine phosphatase (IA2-ab), and zinc transporter (ZnT8-ab) in a cohort of 290 RA patients (215 women and 75 men, median disease duration 11 years). Of those, 21 had a DM diagnosis at baseline. The development of new DM cases and mortality were traced in a 10-year prospective follow-up. Predictive analyses for DM and mortality were carried out by the Mantel-Cox regression. We found that 27 of the patients (9.3%) had DMab, equally often men and women. The presence of DMab was more frequent in patients with DM (p = 0.027. OR 4.01, 95%CI [1.20; 11.97]), suggesting their specificity for the disease. Men had more prevalent incidental DM at the baseline (12% vs. 5%, p = 0.030) and among the new DM cases (p = 0.012. HR 6.08, 95%CI [1.57; 25]). New DM developed equally frequently in DMab-positive and DMab-negative patients. DM, but not DMab, significantly increased the estimated mortality rate in RA patients (p = 0.021, OR 4.38 [1.2; 13.52]). Taken together, we conclude that DMab are associated with DM in RA patients, but they are not solely enough to predict disease development or mortality in those patients.