Volume 17, Issue 6 pp. 417-425
Original Article

Utility of diabetes-associated autoantibodies for classification of new onset diabetes in children and adolescents

Julia E von Oettingen

Corresponding Author

Julia E von Oettingen

Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Corresponding author: Julia von Oettingen, MD, PhD, MMSc,

Division of Endocrinology

Boston Children's Hospital

300 Longwood Avenue

Boston,

MA 02115,

USA.

Tel: (617) 355-7476;

fax: (617) 730-0194;

e-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Joseph I Wolfsdorf

Joseph I Wolfsdorf

Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Henry A Feldman

Henry A Feldman

Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Clinical Research Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Erinn T Rhodes

Erinn T Rhodes

Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 28 August 2015
Citations: 7

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether measuring diabetes-associated autoantibodies (DAA) in pediatric new onset diabetes (NODM) can be restricted to patients with equivocal diabetes type.

Research design and methods

Retrospective analysis of all patients with NODM admitted to Boston Children's Hospital from 1 October 2007 to 1 July 2013 who had measurement of DAA [glutamic acid decarboxylase, insulin, insulinoma-associated antigen 2 (IA-2)]. Data collection included initial diagnosis of diabetes type before DAA results and at follow-up. We used logistic regression to predict type 1 diabetes (T1D) and developed a clinical score to classify diabetes type.

Results

Of 1089 patients (45.4% female, 76.7% White, age 10.6 ± 4.5 yr), initial diagnosis was 1021 (93.8%) T1D, 42 (3.9%) type 2 diabetes (T2D), and 26 (2.4%) other. Of 993 patients with clinical T1D, 78 (7.9%) were DAA−, and of 42 patients with clinical T2D, 12 (28.6%) were DAA+. Type of diabetes was reclassified at follow-up in less than 6% of patients. Data from a subset of 736 patients were used to develop a scoring system to predict T1D. Using weight z-score, age, and race, the scoring system had 91.7% sensitivity, 82% specificity, and a positive predictive value of 98.6%, and suggested DAA measurement was unnecessary in 85.3% of patients. Findings were similar in a validation cohort of 234 patients.

Conclusions

Application of a simple scoring system may reduce to ∼15% the number of DAA measurements needed to classify diabetes type, resulting in substantial cost savings. Clinical judgment should guide the decision to measure DAA.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.