Miao Dongmei, Steck Andrea K, Zhang Li, Guyer K Michelle, Jiang Ling, Armstrong Taylor, Muller Sarah M, Krischer Jeffrey, Rewers Marian, Yu Liping
1 Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver , Aurora, Colorado.
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 Feb;17(2):119-27. doi: 10.1089/dia.2014.0186. Epub 2015 Jan 6.
We recently developed new electrochemiluminescence (ECL) insulin autoantibody (IAA) and glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 autoantibody (GADA) assays that discriminate high-affinity, high-risk diabetes-specific autoantibodies from low-affinity, low-risk islet autoantibodies (iAbs) detected by radioassay (RAD). Here, we report a further validation of the ECL-IAA and -GADA assays in 3,484 TrialNet study participants. The ECL assay and RAD were congruent in those with prediabetes and in subjects with multiple autoantibodies, but only 24% (P<0.0001) of single RAD-IAA-positive and 46% (P<0.0001) of single RAD-GADA-positive were confirmed by the ECL-IAA and -GADA assays, respectively. During a follow-up (mean, 2.4 years), 51% of RAD-IAA-positive and 63% of RAD-GADA-positive subjects not confirmed by ECL became iAb negative, compared with only 17% of RAD-IAA-positive (P<0.0001) and 15% of RAD-GADA-positive (P<0.0001) subjects confirmed by ECL assays. Among subjects with multiple iAbs, diabetes-free survival was significantly shorter if IAA or GADA was positive by ECL and negative by RAD than if IAA or GADA was negative by ECL and positive by RAD (P<0.019 and P<0.0001, respectively). Both positive and negative predictive values in terms of progression to type 1 diabetes mellitus were superior for ECL-IAA and ECL-GADA, compared with RADs. The prevalence of the high-risk human leukocyte antigen-DR3/4, DQB1*0302 genotype was significantly higher in subjects with RAD-IAA or RAD-GADA confirmed by ECL. In conclusion, both ECL-IAA and -GADA are more disease-specific and better able to predict the risk of progression to type 1 diabetes mellitus than the current standard RADs.
我们最近开发了新的电化学发光(ECL)胰岛素自身抗体(IAA)和谷氨酸脱羧酶65自身抗体(GADA)检测方法,可将高亲和力、高风险的糖尿病特异性自身抗体与通过放射免疫分析(RAD)检测到的低亲和力、低风险胰岛自身抗体(iAb)区分开来。在此,我们报告了在3484名TrialNet研究参与者中对ECL - IAA和 - GADA检测方法的进一步验证。ECL检测方法与RAD在糖尿病前期患者和多种自身抗体阳性的受试者中结果一致,但在单一RAD - IAA阳性者中,只有24%(P<0.0001)被ECL - IAA检测方法确认,在单一RAD - GADA阳性者中,只有46%(P<0.0001)被ECL - GADA检测方法确认。在随访期间(平均2.4年),未被ECL确认的RAD - IAA阳性受试者中有51%和RAD - GADA阳性受试者中有63%的iAb变为阴性,相比之下,被ECL检测方法确认的RAD - IAA阳性受试者中只有17%(P<0.0001)和RAD - GADA阳性受试者中只有15%(P<0.0001)的iAb变为阴性。在具有多种iAb的受试者中,如果IAA或GADA通过ECL检测为阳性而通过RAD检测为阴性,其无糖尿病生存期显著短于IAA或GADA通过ECL检测为阴性而通过RAD检测为阳性的情况(分别为P<0.019和P<0.0001)。与RAD相比,ECL - IAA和ECL - GADA在预测1型糖尿病进展方面的阳性和阴性预测值均更优。通过ECL确认的RAD - IAA或RAD - GADA阳性受试者中,高风险人类白细胞抗原 - DR3/4、DQB1*0302基因型的患病率显著更高。总之,与当前标准的RAD相比,ECL - IAA和 - GADA都更具疾病特异性,并且更能预测进展为1型糖尿病的风险。