New clinical screening strategy to distinguish HNF1A variant-induced diabetes from young early-onset type 2 diabetes in a Chinese population

The use of precision diagnostics for monogenic diabetes: a systematic review and expert opinion

BACKGROUND

Monogenic diabetes presents opportunities for precision medicine but is underdiagnosed. This review systematically assessed the evidence for (1) clinical criteria and (2) methods for genetic testing for monogenic diabetes, summarized resources for (3) considering a gene or (4) variant as causal for monogenic diabetes, provided expert recommendations for (5) reporting of results; and reviewed (6) next steps after monogenic diabetes diagnosis and (7) challenges in precision medicine field.

METHODS

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched (1990-2022) using inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies that sequenced one or more monogenic diabetes genes in at least 100 probands (Question 1), evaluated a non-obsolete genetic testing method to diagnose monogenic diabetes (Question 2). The risk of bias was assessed using the revised QUADAS-2 tool. Existing guidelines were summarized for questions 3-5, and review of studies for questions 6-7, supplemented by expert recommendations. Results were summarized in tables and informed recommendations for clinical practice.

RESULTS

There are 100, 32, 36, and 14 studies included for questions 1, 2, 6, and 7 respectively. On this basis, four recommendations for who to test and five on how to test for monogenic diabetes are provided. Existing guidelines for variant curation and gene-disease validity curation are summarized. Reporting by gene names is recommended as an alternative to the term MODY. Key steps after making a genetic diagnosis and major gaps in our current knowledge are highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a synthesis of current evidence and expert opinion on how to use precision diagnostics to identify individuals with monogenic diabetes.

The clinical implications of fasting serum insulin levels in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional survey

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the clinical implications of fasting serum insulin (FINS) levels in subjects with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin therapy.

Methods

A total of 1,553 subjects with type 2 diabetes [774 subjects who had never received insulin treatment (N-INS) and 779 subjects who were receiving insulin therapy (constant insulin treatment, C-INS)] admitted to the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism of Peking University People's Hospital were enrolled in this study. Their FINS levels were measured and those with hyperinsulinemia were identified. The underlying mechanisms of hyperinsulinemia were revealed by measuring insulin antibodies (IAs) and analyzing changes in FINS levels before and after polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation. In addition, the clinical characteristics of patients with different types of hyperinsulinemia were compared.

Results

Higher FINS levels and a higher incidence (43.8%, 341/779) of hyperinsulinemia (FINS > 15μIU/mL) were observed in subjects with C-INS than in subjects with N-INS. Among subjects with C-INS and hyperinsulinemia, 66.9% (228/341) were IAs positive, and the incidence of IAs was found to be positively associated with FINS level. By performing PEG precipitation, we found that all subjects without IAs (i.e., those with real hyperinsulinemia) and 31.1% of subjects (71/228) with IAs (i.e., those with both real and IAs-related hyperinsulinemia) still had hyperinsulinemia after PEG precipitation, whereas FINS levels in the other 68.9% of subjects (157/228) with IAs were normal (IAs-related hyperinsulinemia) after PEG precipitation. Comparisons between the groups showed that subjects with real hyperinsulinemia showed more obvious insulin resistance characteristics, including higher lipid levels, BMIs, and homoeostasis model assessment2-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA2-IR) index, and were more likely to have hypertension, obesity, and metabolic syndromes (p < 0.05). However, the risk of hypoglycemia and glucose variability increased significantly in subjects with IAs compared with those without IAs. A cutoff of FINS to serum C-peptide ratio (≥ 9.3μIU/ng) could be used to screen IAs in clinical practice with 83.3% sensitivity and 70% specificity.

Conclusions

It is necessary to measure FINS in subjects with C-INS to distinguish between types of hyperinsulinemia, which should help to tailor treatment regimens.

Two siblings with a rare type of maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY)

Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) is a type of diabetes that does not entirely fit the usually encountered type 1 or type 2 diabetes. It is a monogenic, familial and non-autoimmune diabetes among children and young adults resulting from autosomal dominant gene mutations.MODY diagnosis is confirmed by molecular genetic testing, which is costly. Therefore, it is rarely done.Nearly 1%-6% of diabetes has a monogenic cause but this is frequently misclassified as type 1 diabetes mellitus due to the lack of genetic testing. Therefore, a correct diagnosis of MODY is crucial for determining the plan of management. Furthermore, having a patient with MODY in a family indicates screening other family members. In this case report, we highlight that paediatric diabetes cases are not always type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus since two siblings incidentally presented with hyperglycaemia and a confirmed diagnosis of MODY type 10 was ultimately made. Moreover, their mother who was previously labelled as a case of type 1 diabetes mellitus was diagnosed later as MODY after genetic testing.

Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young: Mutations, Physiological Consequences, and Treatment Options

Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY) is a rare form of diabetes which affects between 1% and 5% of diagnosed diabetes cases. Clinical characterizations of MODY include onset of diabetes at an early age (before the age of 30), autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, impaired glucose-induced secretion of insulin, and hyperglycemia. Presently, 14 MODY subtypes have been identified. Within these subtypes are several mutations which contribute to the different MODY phenotypes. Despite the identification of these 14 subtypes, MODY is often misdiagnosed as type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus due to an overlap in clinical features, high cost and limited availability of genetic testing, and unfamiliarity with MODY outside of the medical profession. The primary aim of this review is to investigate the genetic characterization of the MODY subtypes. Additionally, this review will elucidate the link between the genetics, function, and clinical manifestations of MODY in each of the 14 subtypes. In providing this knowledge, we hope to assist in the accurate diagnosis of MODY patients and, subsequently, in ensuring they receive appropriate treatment.

Early-onset diabetes involving three consecutive generations had different clinical features from age-matched type 2 diabetes without a family history in China

PURPOSE

Early-onset, multigenerational diabetes is a heterogeneous disease, which is often simplistically classified as type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes(T2D). However, its clinical and genetic characteristics have not been clearly elucidated. The aim of our study is to investigate the clinical features of early-onset diabetes involving three consecutive generations (eDia3) in a Chinese diabetes cohort.

METHODS

Of 6470 type 2 diabetic patients, 105 were identified as eDia3 (1.6%). After a case-control match on age, we compared the clinical characteristics of 89 eDia3 patients with 89 early-onset T2D patients without a family history of diabetes (eDia0). WES was carried out in 89 patients with eDia3. We primarily focused on 14 known maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) genes. Variants were predicted by ten tools (SIFT, PolyPhen2_HDIV, PolyPhen2_HVAR, LRT, Mutation Assessor, Mutation Taster, FATHMM, GERP++, PhyloP, and PhastCons). All suspected variants were then validated by Sanger sequencing and further investigated in the proband families.

RESULTS

Compared to age-matched eDia0, eDia3 patients had a younger age at diagnosis (26.5 ± 5.8 vs. 29.4 ± 5.3 years, P = 0.001), lower body mass index (25.5 ± 3.9 vs. 27.4 ± 4.6 kg/m², P = 0.003), lower systolic blood pressure (120 ± 15 vs. 128 ± 18 mmHg, P = 0.003), and better metabolic profiles (including glucose and lipids). Of the 89 eDia3 patients, 10 (11.2%) carried likely pathogenic variants in genes (KLF11, GCK, ABCC8, PAX4, BLK and HNF1A) of MODY.

CONCLUSIONS

eDia3 patients had unique clinical features. Known MODY genes were not common causes in these patients.