Identifying type 1 and 2 diabetes in research datasets where classification biomarkers are unavailable: assessing the accuracy of published approaches

Characterization of genetic variants of GIPR reveals a contribution of β-arrestin to metabolic phenotypes

Incretin-based therapies are highly successful in combatting obesity and type 2 diabetes1. Yet both activation and inhibition of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor (GIPR) in combination with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor (GLP-1R) activation have resulted in similar clinical outcomes, as demonstrated by the GIPR-GLP-1R co-agonist tirzepatide2 and AMG-133 (ref. 3) combining GIPR antagonism with GLP-1R agonism. This underlines the importance of a better understanding of the GIP system. Here we show the necessity of β-arrestin recruitment for GIPR function, by combining in vitro pharmacological characterization of 47 GIPR variants with burden testing of clinical phenotypes and in vivo studies. Burden testing of variants with distinct ligand-binding capacity, Gs activation (cyclic adenosine monophosphate production) and β-arrestin 2 recruitment and internalization shows that unlike variants solely impaired in Gs signalling, variants impaired in both Gs and β-arrestin 2 recruitment contribute to lower adiposity-related traits. Endosomal Gs-mediated signalling of the variants shows a β-arrestin dependency and genetic ablation of β-arrestin 2 impairs cyclic adenosine monophosphate production and decreases GIP efficacy on glucose control in male mice. This study highlights a crucial impact of β-arrestins in regulating GIPR signalling and overall preservation of biological activity that may facilitate new developments in therapeutic targeting of the GIPR system.

Clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential predicts incident cardiac arrhythmias

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), the age-related expansion of blood cells with preleukemic mutations, is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This study aimed to test the association of CHIP with new-onset arrhythmias.

METHODS

UK Biobank participants without prevalent arrhythmias were included. Co-primary study outcomes were supraventricular arrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias, and ventricular arrhythmias. Secondary outcomes were cardiac arrest, atrial fibrillation, and any arrhythmia. Associations of any CHIP [variant allele fraction (VAF) ≥ 2%], large CHIP (VAF ≥10%), and gene-specific CHIP subtypes with incident arrhythmias were evaluated using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. Associations of CHIP with myocardial interstitial fibrosis [T1 measured using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)] were also tested.

RESULTS

This study included 410 702 participants [CHIP: n = 13 892 (3.4%); large CHIP: n = 9191 (2.2%)]. Any and large CHIP were associated with multi-variable-adjusted hazard ratios of 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.18; P = .001] and 1.13 (95% CI 1.05-1.22; P = .001) for supraventricular arrhythmias, 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.19; P = .031) and 1.13 (95% CI 1.03-1.25; P = .011) for bradyarrhythmias, and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34; P = .049) and 1.22 (95% CI 1.03-1.45; P = .021) for ventricular arrhythmias, respectively. Associations were independent of coronary artery disease and heart failure. Associations were also heterogeneous across arrhythmia subtypes and strongest for cardiac arrest. Gene-specific analyses revealed an increased risk of arrhythmias across driver genes other than DNMT3A. Large CHIP was associated with 1.31-fold odds (95% CI 1.07-1.59; P = .009) of being in the top quintile of myocardial fibrosis by CMR.

CONCLUSIONS

CHIP may represent a novel risk factor for incident arrhythmias, indicating a potential target for modulation towards arrhythmia prevention and treatment.

Risk factor associations for severe COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia in people with diabetes to inform future pandemic preparations: UK population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare clinical and sociodemographic risk factors for severe COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia, in people with diabetes.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

UK primary care records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) linked to mortality and hospital records.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (COVID-19 cohort: n=43 033 type 1 diabetes and n=584 854 type 2 diabetes, influenza and pneumonia cohort: n=42 488 type 1 diabetes and n=585 289 type 2 diabetes).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

COVID-19 hospitalisation from 1 February 2020 to 31 October 2020 (pre-COVID-19 vaccination roll-out), and influenza and pneumonia hospitalisation from 1 September 2016 to 31 May 2019 (pre-COVID-19 pandemic). Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 and pneumonia mortality. Associations between clinical and sociodemographic risk factors and each outcome were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. In people with type 2 diabetes, we explored modifying effects of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) by age, sex and ethnicity.

RESULTS

In type 2 diabetes, poor glycaemic control and severe obesity were consistently associated with increased risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia. The highest HbA1c and BMI-associated relative risks were observed in people aged under 70 years. Sociodemographic-associated risk differed markedly by respiratory infection, particularly for ethnicity. Compared with people of white ethnicity, black and south Asian groups had a greater risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation, but a lesser risk of pneumonia hospitalisation. Risk factor associations for type 1 diabetes and for type 2 diabetes mortality were broadly consistent with the primary analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical risk factors of high HbA1c and severe obesity are consistently associated with severe outcomes from COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia, especially in younger people. In contrast, associations with sociodemographic risk factors differed by type of respiratory infection. This emphasises that risk stratification should be specific to individual respiratory infections.

Elevated serum IL-2 and Th17/Treg imbalance are associated with gout

Gout is considered an auto-inflammatory disorder, and the immunological drivers have not been fully unraveled. This study compared the peripheral lymphocyte and CD4+T cell subsets, and cytokines in gout and healthy controls (HCs) to explore the contributions of T helper 17 (Th17) cells, T regulatory (Treg) cells and cytokines to the pathogenesis of gout. We enrolled 126 gout patients (53 early-onset gout with age of first presentation < 40 years, and 73 late-onset gout with age of first presentation ≥ 40 years) and 77 HCs. Percentage and absolute numbers of peripheral lymphocyte and CD4+T cell subpopulations in each group were detected by flow cytometry. The serum cytokine levels were determined by flow cytometric bead array. For circulating CD4+T cell subsets, Th17/Treg ratio was significantly higher in early-onset gout, late-onset gout and gout without tophus than HCs; Th17 cells were significantly elevated in early-onset gout and gout without tophus, while the percentage of Treg cells was significantly decreased in early-onset and late-onset gout. Additionally, gout patients had significantly higher cytokines levels (including IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17, IFN-γ, and TNF-α) than HCs; IL-2 levels were positively correlated with Treg cells and negatively correlated with ESR. ROC analysis showed that disease duration, CRP and fibrinogen, had moderate predictive performances for tophus in gout (the AUCs were 0.753, 0.703 and 0.701, respectively). Our study suggests that early-onset and late-onset gout differ in Th17/Treg imbalance, which in early-onset gout is due to elevated Th17 cells and in late-onset gout is due to decreased Treg cells. And increased serum cytokine levels, especially IL-2, may play an essential role in that. Restoring Th17/Treg balance may be a crucial way to improve the prognosis of gout patients.

The challenges of identifying and studying type 1 diabetes in adults

Diagnosing type 1 diabetes in adults is difficult since type 2 diabetes is the predominant diabetes type, particularly with an older age of onset (approximately >30 years). Misclassification of type 1 diabetes in adults is therefore common and will impact both individual patient management and the reported features of clinically classified cohorts. In this article, we discuss the challenges associated with correctly identifying adult-onset type 1 diabetes and the implications of these challenges for clinical practice and research. We discuss how many of the reported differences in the characteristics of autoimmune/type 1 diabetes with increasing age of diagnosis are likely explained by the inadvertent study of mixed populations with and without autoimmune aetiology diabetes. We show that when type 1 diabetes is defined by high-specificity methods, clinical presentation, islet-autoantibody positivity, genetic predisposition and progression of C-peptide loss remain broadly similar and severe at all ages and are unaffected by onset age within adults. Recent clinical guidance recommends routine islet-autoantibody testing when type 1 diabetes is clinically suspected or in the context of rapid progression to insulin therapy after a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. In this moderate or high prior-probability setting, a positive islet-autoantibody test will usually confirm autoimmune aetiology (type 1 diabetes). We argue that islet-autoantibody testing of those with apparent type 2 diabetes should not be routinely undertaken as, in this low prior-prevalence setting, the positive predictive value of a single-positive islet antibody for autoimmune aetiology diabetes will be modest. When studying diabetes, extremely high-specificity approaches are needed to identify autoimmune diabetes in adults, with the optimal approach depending on the research question. We believe that until these recommendations are widely adopted by researchers, the true phenotype of late-onset type 1 diabetes will remain largely misunderstood.

Utility of genetic risk scores in type 1 diabetes

Iterative advances in understanding of the genetics of type 1 diabetes have identified >70 genetic regions associated with risk of the disease, including strong associations across the HLA class II region that account for >50% of heritability. The increased availability of genetic data combined with the decreased costs of generating these data, have facilitated the development of polygenic scores that aggregate risk variants from associated loci into a single number: either a genetic risk score (GRS) or a polygenic risk score (PRS). PRSs incorporate the risk of many possibly correlated variants from across the genome, even if they do not reach genome-wide significance, whereas GRSs estimate the cumulative contribution of a smaller subset of genetic variants that reach genome-wide significance. Type 1 diabetes GRSs have utility in diabetes classification, aiding discrimination between type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes and MODY. Type 1 diabetes GRSs are also being used in newborn screening studies to identify infants at risk of future presentation of the disease. Most early studies of type 1 diabetes genetics have been conducted in European ancestry populations, but, to develop accurate GRSs across diverse ancestries, large case-control cohorts from non-European populations are still needed. The current barriers to GRS implementation within healthcare are mainly related to a lack of guidance and knowledge on integration with other biomarkers and clinical variables. Once these limitations are addressed, there is huge potential for 'test and treat' approaches to be used to tailor care for individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Algorithms to define diabetes type using data from administrative databases: A systematic review of the evidence

AIMS

To find the best-performing algorithms to distinguish type 1 and type 2 diabetes in administrative data.

METHODS

Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched from January 2000 until January 2023. Papers evaluating the performance of algorithms to define type 1 and type 2 diabetes by reporting diagnostic metrics against a range of reference standards were selected. Study quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

RESULTS

Of the 24 studies meeting the eligibility criteria, 19 demonstrated a low risk of bias and low concerns about the applicability of the study population across all domains. Algorithms considering multiple diabetes diagnostic codes alone were sensitive and specific approaches to classify diabetes type (both metrics >92.1% for type 1 diabetes; >86.9% for type 2 diabetes). Among the top 10-performing algorithms to detect type 1 and type 2 diabetes, 70% and 100% featured multiple criteria, respectively. Information on insulin use was more sensitive and specific for detecting diabetes type than were criteria based on use of oral hypoglycaemic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Algorithms based on multiple diabetes diagnostic codes and insulin use are the most accurate approaches to distinguish type 1 from type 2 diabetes using administrative data. Approaches with more than one criterion may also increase sensitivity in distinguishing diabetes type.

Validation of Register-Based Diabetes Classifiers in Danish Data

Purpose

To validate two register-based algorithms classifying type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a general population using Danish register data.

Patients and Methods

After linking data on prescription drug usage, hospital diagnoses, laboratory results and diabetes-specific healthcare services from nationwide healthcare registers, diabetes type was defined for all individuals in Central Denmark Region age 18-74 years on 31 December 2018 according to two distinct register-based classifiers: 1) a novel register-based diabetes classifier incorporating diagnostic hemoglobin-A1C measurements, the Open-Source Diabetes Classifier (OSDC), and 2) an existing Danish diabetes classifier, the Register for Selected Chronic Diseases (RSCD). These classifications were validated against self-reported data from the Health in Central Denmark survey - overall and stratified by age at onset of diabetes. The source-code of both classifiers was made available in the open-source R package osdc.

Results

A total of 2633 (9.0%) of 29,391 respondents reported having any type of diabetes, divided across 410 (1.4%) self-reported cases of T1D and 2223 (7.6%) cases of T2D. Among all self-reported diabetes cases, 2421 (91.9%) were classified as diabetes cases by both classifiers. In T1D, sensitivity of OSDC-classification was 0.773 [95% CI 0.730-0.813] (RSCD: 0.700 [0.653-0.744]) and positive predictive value (PPV) 0.943 [0.913-0.966] (RSCD: 0.944 [0.912-0.967]). In T2D, sensitivity of OSDC-classification was 0.944 [0.933-0.953] (RSCD: 0.905 [0.892-0.917]) and PPV 0.875 [0.861-0.888] (RSCD: 0.898 [0.884-0.910]). In age at onset-stratified analyses of both classifiers, sensitivity and PPV were low in individuals with T1D onset after age 40 and T2D onset before age 40.

Conclusion

Both register-based classifiers identified valid populations of T1D and T2D in a general population, but sensitivity was substantially higher in OSDC compared to RSCD. Register-classified diabetes type in cases with atypical age at onset of diabetes should be interpreted with caution. The validated, open-source classifiers provide robust and transparent tools for researchers.