The relationship between islet autoantibody status and the genetic risk of type 1 diabetes in adult-onset type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The reason for the observed lower rate of islet autoantibody positivity in clinician-diagnosed adult-onset vs childhood-onset type 1 diabetes is not known. We aimed to explore this by assessing the genetic risk of type 1 diabetes in autoantibody-negative and -positive children and adults. METHODS: We analysed GAD autoantibodies, insulinoma-2 antigen autoantibodies and zinc transporter-8 autoantibodies (ZnT8A) and measured type 1 diabetes genetic risk by genotyping 30 type 1 diabetes-associated variants at diagnosis in 1814 individuals with clinician-diagnosed type 1 diabetes (1112 adult-onset, 702 childhood-onset). We compared the overall type 1 diabetes genetic risk score (T1DGRS) and non-HLA and HLA (DR3-DQ2, DR4-DQ8 and DR15-DQ6) components with autoantibody status in those with adult-onset and childhood-onset diabetes. We also measured the T1DGRS in 1924 individuals with type 2 diabetes from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium to represent non-autoimmune diabetes control participants. RESULTS: The T1DGRS was similar in autoantibody-negative and autoantibody-positive clinician-diagnosed childhood-onset type 1 diabetes (mean [SD] 0.274 [0.034] vs 0.277 [0.026], p=0.4). In contrast, the T1DGRS in autoantibody-negative adult-onset type 1 diabetes was lower than that in autoantibody-positive adult-onset type 1 diabetes (mean [SD] 0.243 [0.036] vs 0.271 [0.026], p<0.0001) but higher than that in type 2 diabetes (mean [SD] 0.229 [0.034], p<0.0001). Autoantibody-negative adults were more likely to have the more protective HLA DR15-DQ6 genotype (15% vs 3%, p<0.0001), were less likely to have the high-risk HLA DR3-DQ2/DR4-DQ8 genotype (6% vs 19%, p<0.0001) and had a lower non-HLA T1DGRS (p<0.0001) than autoantibody-positive adults. In contrast to children, autoantibody-negative adults were more likely to be male (75% vs 59%), had a higher BMI (27 vs 24 kg/m2) and were less likely to have other autoimmune conditions (2% vs 10%) than autoantibody-positive adults (all p<0.0001). In both adults and children, type 1 diabetes genetic risk was unaffected by the number of autoantibodies (p>0.3). These findings, along with the identification of seven misclassified adults with monogenic diabetes among autoantibody-negative adults and the results of a sensitivity analysis with and without measurement of ZnT8A, suggest that the intermediate type 1 diabetes genetic risk in autoantibody-negative adults is more likely to be explained by the inclusion of misclassified non-autoimmune diabetes (estimated to represent 67% of all antibody-negative adults, 95% CI 61%, 73%) than by the presence of unmeasured autoantibodies or by a discrete form of diabetes. When these estimated individuals with non-autoimmune diabetes were adjusted for, the prevalence of autoantibody positivity in adult-onset type 1 diabetes was similar to that in children (93% vs 91%, p=0.4). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The inclusion of non-autoimmune diabetes is the most likely explanation for the observed lower rate of autoantibody positivity in clinician-diagnosed adult-onset type 1 diabetes. Our data support the utility of islet autoantibody measurement in clinician-suspected adult-onset type 1 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

Islet Autoantibody Level Distribution in Type 1 Diabetes and Their Association With Genetic and Clinical Characteristics.

CONTEXT: The importance of the autoantibody level at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is not clear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the association of glutamate decarboxylase (GADA), islet antigen-2 (IA-2A), and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8A) autoantibody levels with clinical and genetic characteristics at diagnosis of T1D. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study. GADA, IA-2A, and ZnT8A were measured in 1644 individuals with T1D at diagnosis using radiobinding assays. Associations between autoantibody levels and the clinical and genetic characteristics for individuals were assessed in those positive for these autoantibodies. We performed replication in an independent cohort of 449 people with T1D. RESULTS: GADA and IA-2A levels exhibited a bimodal distribution at diagnosis. High GADA level was associated with older age at diagnosis (median 27 years vs 19 years, P = 9 × 10-17), female sex (52% vs 37%, P = 1 × 10-8), other autoimmune diseases (13% vs 6%, P = 3 × 10-6), and HLA-DR3-DQ2 (58% vs 51%, P = .006). High IA-2A level was associated with younger age of diagnosis (median 17 years vs 23 years, P = 3 × 10-7), HLA-DR4-DQ8 (66% vs 50%, P = 1 × 10-6), and ZnT8A positivity (77% vs 52%, P = 1 × 10-15). We replicated our findings in an independent cohort of 449 people with T1D where autoantibodies were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. CONCLUSION: Islet autoantibody levels provide additional information over positivity in T1D at diagnosis. Bimodality of GADA and IA-2A autoantibody levels highlights the novel aspect of heterogeneity of T1D. This may have implications for T1D prediction, treatment, and pathogenesis.

DR15-DQ6 remains dominantly protective against type 1 diabetes throughout the first five decades of life.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Among white European children developing type 1 diabetes, the otherwise common HLA haplotype DR15-DQ6 is rare, and highly protective. Adult-onset type 1 diabetes is now known to represent more overall cases than childhood onset, but it is not known whether DR15-DQ6 is protective in older-adult-onset type 1 diabetes. We sought to quantify DR15-DQ6 protection against type 1 diabetes as age of onset increased. METHODS: In two independent cohorts we assessed the proportion of type 1 diabetes cases presenting through the first 50 years of life with DR15-DQ6, compared with population controls. In the After Diabetes Diagnosis Research Support System-2 (ADDRESS-2) cohort (n = 1458) clinician-diagnosed type 1 diabetes was confirmed by positivity for one or more islet-specific autoantibodies. In UK Biobank (n = 2502), we estimated type 1 diabetes incidence rates relative to baseline HLA risk for each HLA group using Poisson regression. Analyses were restricted to white Europeans and were performed in three groups according to age at type 1 diabetes onset: 0-18 years, 19-30 years and 31-50 years. RESULTS: DR15-DQ6 was protective against type 1 diabetes through to age 50 years (OR < 1 for each age group, all p < 0.001). The following ORs for type 1 diabetes, relative to a neutral HLA genotype, were observed in ADDRESS-2: age 5-18 years OR 0.16 (95% CI 0.08, 0.31); age 19-30 years OR 0.10 (0.04, 0.23); and age 31-50 years OR 0.37 (0.21, 0.68). DR15-DQ6 also remained highly protective at all ages in UK Biobank. Without DR15-DQ6, the presence of major type 1 diabetes high-risk haplotype (either DR3-DQ2 or DR4-DQ8) was associated with increased risk of type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: HLA DR15-DQ6 confers dominant protection from type 1 diabetes across the first five decades of life.

Individual and diabetes presentation characteristics associated with partial remission status in children and adults evaluated up to 12 months following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: An ADDRESS-2 (After Diagnosis Diabetes Research Support System-2) study analysis.

AIMS: People with recently-diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) may undergo a transient period of glycaemic control with less exogenous insulin. Identification of predictors of this 'remission' could inform a better understanding of glycaemic control. METHODS: Participants in the ADDRESS-2 study were included who had 1 or 2 assessments of remission status (coincident insulin dose and HbA1c measurement, with remission defined by ≤0.4 units insulin/kg-body-weight/day with HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol). Demographic and clinical presentation characteristics were compared according to remission status and predictors of remission were explored by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: 1470 first and 469 second assessments of remission status were recorded within 12 months of diagnosis of T1D. Step increases in the probability of remission were identified at age-at-diagnosis 20 years and 3 months after diagnosis (both p < 0.001). Among those aged < 20 years, remission was associated with male gender (p = 0.02), no ketoacidosis (p = 0.02) and fewer than 2 symptoms at presentation (p = 0.004). None of these characteristics predicted remission in those aged ≥ 20 years. In the subgroup with two assessments, transition to remission was independently associated with first remission assessment in months 1-2 post-diagnosis (p = 0.01), with age-at-diagnosis ≥ 20 years (p = 0.01) and, in those aged < 20 years, with an early HbA1c of <57 mmol/mol. Adiposity, ethnicity, autoantibody status and other autoimmune disease were unrelated to remission. CONCLUSIONS: For those diagnosed before 20 years of age, males, ketoacidosis-free, with fewer symptoms and low early HbA1c were more likely to experience remission, but remission was most likely in anyone aged ≥ 20 at diagnosis.

Relationship between islet autoantibody status and the clinical characteristics of children and adults with incident type 1 diabetes in a UK cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of children and adults with incident type 1 diabetes in contemporary, multiethnic UK, focusing on differences between the islet autoantibody negative and positive. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: 146 mainly secondary care centres across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 3312 people aged ≥5 years were recruited within 6 months of a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes via the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. 3021 were of white European ethnicity and 291 (9%) were non-white. There was a small male predominance (57%). Young people <17 years comprised 59%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Autoantibody status and characteristics at presentation. RESULTS: The majority presented with classical osmotic symptoms, weight loss and fatigue. Ketoacidosis was common (42%), especially in adults, and irrespective of ethnicity. 35% were overweight or obese. Of the 1778 participants who donated a blood sample, 85% were positive for one or more autoantibodies against glutamate decarboxylase, islet antigen-2 and zinc transporter 8. Presenting symptoms were similar in the autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative participants, as was the frequency of ketoacidosis (43%vs40%, P=0.3). Autoantibody positivity was less common with increasing age (P=0.0001), in males compared with females (82%vs90%, P<0.0001) and in people of non-white compared with white ethnicity (73%vs86%, P<0.0001). Body mass index was higher in autoantibody-negative adults than autoantibody-positive adults (median, IQR 25.5, 23.1-29.2vs23.9, 21.4-26.7 kg/m2; P=0.0001). Autoantibody-negative participants were more likely to have a parent with diabetes (28%vs16%, P<0.0001) and less likely to have another autoimmune disease (4%vs8%, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most people assigned a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes presented with classical clinical features and islet autoantibodies. Although indistinguishable at an individual level, autoantibody-negative participants as a group demonstrated features more typically associated with other diabetes subtypes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66496918; Pre-results.

Rationale and protocol for the After Diabetes Diagnosis REsearch Support System (ADDRESS): an incident and high risk type 1 diabetes UK cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes is heterogeneous in its presentation and progression. Variations in clinical presentation between children and adults, and with ethnic group warrant further study in the UK to improve understanding of this heterogeneity. Early interventions to limit beta cell damage in type 1 diabetes are undergoing evaluation, but recruitment is challenging. The protocol presented describes recruitment of people with clinician-assigned, new-onset type 1 diabetes to understand the variation in their manner of clinical presentation, to facilitate recruitment into intervention studies and to create an open-access resource of data and biological samples for future type 1 diabetes research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, patients >5 years of age diagnosed clinically with type 1 diabetes (and their siblings) are recruited within 6 months of diagnosis. Participants agree to have their clinical, laboratory and demographic data stored on a secure database, for their clinical progress to be monitored using information held by NHS Digital, and to be contacted about additional research, in particular immunotherapy and other interventions. An optional blood sample is taken for islet autoantibody measurement and storage of blood and DNA for future analyses. Data will be analysed statistically to describe the presentation of incident type 1 diabetes in a contemporary UK population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the independent NHS Research Ethics Service. Results will be presented at national and international meetings and submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals.

Effective contrast of colored stimuli in the mesopic range: a metric for perceived contrast based on achromatic luminance contrast.

Little is known about how color signals and cone- and rod-based luminance signals contribute to perceived contrast in the mesopic range. In this study the perceived contrast of colored, mesopic stimuli was matched with that of spatially equivalent achromatic stimuli. The objective was to develop a metric for perceived contrast in the mesopic range in terms of an equivalent achromatic luminance contrast, referred to here as effective contrast. Stimulus photopic luminance contrast, scotopic luminance contrast, and chromatic difference from the background all contributed to effective contrast over the mid-mesopic range, but their contributions were not independent and varied markedly with background luminance. Surprisingly, color made a significant contribution to effective contrast from 10 to approximately 0.003 cd m(-2). A model describing this relationship is introduced (R2 = 0.89) and compared with predictions of mesopic luminance contrast obtained from a number of models proposed as systems of mesopic photometry.