BACK TO INTRODUCTION
IMMUNOLOGIC
& GENETIC TESTING IN DIABETES
Genetic
THE
ROLE OF GLUCOSE MANAGEMENT IN DIABETES
NON
& MINIMALLY INVASIVE GLUCOSE ANALYSIS
Monitoring
of Patients with Diabetes
KETONES
GLYCATED
PROTEINS
INSULIN
& PRECURSORS, LEPTIN & AMYLIUN: IS THERE A ROLE?
TESTING
FOR MICRO ALBUMINURIA
|
Guidelines
& Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis & Management
of Diabetes Mellitus
Noel K Maclaren MD and John Marker BS
Weill College of Medicine of Cornell University
New York, NY 10021.
Auto-immune
Markers
1.
Use: A.
Diagnosis/screening:
Recommendation:
Islet cell auto-antibodies are not yet
recommended for routine diagnosis or screening. However, valuable
clinical information can be gained through their identification.
It is important that they be measured in a central laboratory with
an established quality control program. They are comprised
by cytoplasmic islet cell autoantibodies (ICA); insulin autoantibodies
(IAA), glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies (GADA), and the
tyrosine phosphatase autoantibodies (IA-2A and IA-2bA).
ICA are the most sensitive and specific for IMD as single tests,
however the indirect immunofluorescence assay is difficult to perform
reliably, while the chemical assays are more reproducible. Whereas,
patients with IMD have been reported to have low frequencies of
autoreactive T cells in their peripheral blood that can be demonstrated
to proliferate in-vitro upon exposure to the islet cell antigens
GAD and IA-2, the variability of such assays precludes their use
in a clinical setting. Typing of class 2 major histocompatibility
antigens or human leukocyte antigens DRB1 and DQA1 and DQB1 are
not diagnostic of IMD, however certain of them are susceptible or
resistant alleles. Thus HLA-DR/DQ typing can be used to increase
or decrease the probability of IMD only, and thus cannot be recommended
for clinical diagnosis.
Diagnosis: When
a patient has been diagnosed with diabetes, the assignment to immune
mediated form of type 1 diabetes can only be made by identification
of ICA. Most Caucasian children (90%) and adults (60%) with clinical
type 1 diabetes have ICA, indicating that IMD accounts for most
but not all of these patients. However, 15-20% of Caucasian adult
patients who present without symptoms of insulin deficiency (type
2 diabetes phenotype) have ICAs. The incidence for Hispanic and
African American diabetics is xq and yq, respectively. Whereas islet
cell auto-antibody positive diabetic patients progress faster to
absolute insulinopenia than do antibody negative patients, it should
be recognized that many antibody negative adults who present with
asymptomatic diabetes, also progress to become insulin dependent
over time. It is believed by some that prolonged glucose mediated
toxicity is responsible. Studies of gestational diabetes indicate
that late post-partum progression to type 1 diabetes is greatest
for patients with positive ICAs. Young infants and children may
develop transient hyperglycemia with gastro-enteritis and especially
with upper respiratory tract infections. Most resolve and appear
not to be at risk of diabetes in later life. The small subset with
positive ICA however, is at high subsequent risk for type-1 diabetes.
Screening:
There is no doubt that screening of relatives with IMD
for islet cell auto-antibodies can identify the small group at high
risk to also develop the disease. Relatives of patients with type
1 diabetes are at 15-fold the empirical risk of developing IMD (about
5%) than persons from the general population (1:250-300 over a life
time). ICA are detectable in about 3.5% of relatives, where they
are associated with an absolute risk of progression to overt diabetes
over 5-7 years of about 30%. The higher the titer of ICA and the
younger the relative when ICA is first found to be positive, then
the greater the risk of impending IMD. ICA comprise antigenic reactivities
to a number of islet cell antigens, including the lower molecular
weight isoform of GAD (GAD65), two (IA-2 and IA-2b) of the many trans-membrane tyrosine
phosphatases expressed by pancreatic islets, and other islet cell
antigens that have yet to be identified. When ICA occur with other
defined autoantobodies (IAA, IA-2A/IA-2bA),
then the risk of impending IMD rises greatly, to be almost a given.
The higher titered ICA are most likely to comprise multiple component
autoantibodies (GADA and/or IA-2A), explaining their associated
higher risk for IMD. However, as many as 2% of normal adults have
GAD reactive auto-antibodies that do not react as ICA, and such
persons are at little to no risk of developing IMD unless they also
have IA-2 or insulin autoantibodies (IAA) which most do not. Relatives
of ___________with positive ICA can be followed by first phase of
insulin release after IV glucose tolerance testing (IVGTT). HLA-DQB1*0602
containing genotypes are strongly protective of impending IMD, however
such persons may develop islet cell autoantibodies where their prognostic
significance is markedly reduced. When new-born infants with high
risk HLA-DR/DQ genotypes are followed, those that develop islet
cell autoantibodies begin to do so from about 9 months of age through
18 months of age, however some appear before and after this time.
IAA and GAD65A tend to occur first, and IA-2A/IA-2bA
later. Thus the environmental inductive agent long speculated about,
must thus occur most often in the infancy period of life. After
age 7, few persons develop islet cell antibodies for the first time,
albeit some with only a single type of autoantibody will undergo
antigenic/epitopic spreading beyond this time. It is recommended
that relatives being screened for islet cell antibodies be screened
yearly until age 10, biannually from 10-20 years of age and if found
negative beyond age 20, they need not be screened again unless for
diagnosis if overt diabetes occurs beyond this age.
B. Monitoring/Prognosis.
Recommendation:
Whereas impending IMD or risk of IMD can be identified through
detection of islet cell autoantibodies, there are no therapies that
are yet proven to prolong survival of islet cells once diabetes
has been diagnosed, or to prevent the clinical onset of the disease
in autoantibody positive subjects. Thus repeated islet cell autoantibodies
to monitor the disease are not yet clinically useful, and cannot
be recommended. The possible exception however, would be in islet
cell or whole pancreas transplantation, where recurrence of islet
cell autoimmunity often results as indicated by reappearance of
or by rising titers of islet cell autoantibodies. However, diabetic
patients who have islet cell autoantibodies are useful diagnostically
as discussed above. Further, which antibodies are of value prognostically
in adult diabetic patients particularly, to identify a subset with
a high rate of failure of oral hypoglycemic agents. Although not
yet formally proven in man, it appears likely to the authors that
the capacity to secrete endogenous insulin from the time of diagnosis
will be improved if such patients are treated by insulin replacement
therapy rather than oral hypoglycemic agents, from their clinical
outsets.There
are a number of potential intervention therapies for IMD that are
undergoing clinical trials or likely will be so tested in the near
future. These include oral insulin given to patients at their diagnosis
or to islet cell autoantibody positive relatives, and nasal insulin
in both types of patients. The initial trials of a vaccine based
upon immunization by an insulin B chain peptide are to begin soon.
Additional trials of other antigen based immunotherapies, adjuvants,
cytokines and T cell accessory molecule blocking agents are likely
in the future. Decreases in objective evidence of islet cell autoimmunity
will be one important outcome measure, such as the quantitative
decrease in titers of islet cell autoantibodies with the intervention.
Metabolic outcome measures will include reductions in the rate of
decline in the first phase of insulin release after IVGTT. The normal
limits for this where the 1 and 3 minute levels of insulin are summed,
is > 60 nU/ml for children under age 8 years, and > than 100
nU/ml for those over age 8 years. Other metabolic measures include
plasma C-peptide levels after a mixed meal TT if the interventions
are being tested in the post clinical onset period, where development
of insulin antibodies to therapeutic insulin replacement will interfere
with measurement of plasma insulin but not C-peptide levels.
2.
Rationale.
- Diagnosis:
Islet cell autoantibodies although not considered to be causal
to the pancreatic b cell destruction of IMD,
provide the diagnostic indicators of the disease. In a diabetic
patient, their identification indicates that disease is IMD. This
is a use that we believe should be recommended. However it must
be understood that islet cell autoantibodies in the absence of diabetes
is not indicative of IMD, since most persons with such antibodies
will never develop diabetes. In antibody positive individuals, impaired
secretion of endogenous insulin to stimuli can be used as a surrogate
for diabetes provided that the insulin or C-peptide levels are below
the referance range (mean - 2SDs).
B. Screening: The screening of relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes
or persons in the general population does provide useful prognostic
information, however until there is a proven intervention therapy
to prevent the clinical onset of the disease available, such testing
cannot be recommended outside of a research setting. In respect
to the latter, it is strongly recommended that research groups get
together to identify cohorts of antibody positive persons from relatives
or from the general population on which to test prospective intervention
strategies.
3.
Analytical Issues
- Preanalytical
Recommendations:
Fortunately, blood samples for islet cell autoantibody determinations
can be taken at any time of day and in the non fasting state, albeit
lipemic serum may interfere with antibody binding in any of the
assays. Serum rather than plasma is recommended, since heparin may
lower the antibody titers. Hemolysis may also interfere, especially
with the indirect immuno-fluorescence assay for ICA. We recommend
the use of serum separator tubes to collect blood samples for
the ICA assay since better quality sera give less ambiguity in the
ICA test procedure. The sera may be sent to the analytical laboratory
by overnight mail in an unfrozen state if freshly obtained. However
when longer times than this are foreseen, the sera should be frozen
and sent to the laboratory on dry ice.
Reference
values: ICA are measured by end point titering, as compared
to a standard sera obtained by the Immunology of Diabetes Workshop
group, through plasmaphoresis of an index newly diagnosed IMD patient.
The results in comparison to this sera or its’ progeny are reported
in Juvenile Diabetes Foundation (JDF) Units. Positive results depend
upon the study or context that they are to be used in, but many
laboratories like ours use 10 JDF units determined on two separate
occasions, or a single result of 20 JDF units and higher to be significant
titers which convey an increased risk of diabetes. IAA are measured
quantitatively, in respect to the specific displaceable binding
to the insulin ligand. Significant results are those where the
specific (antibody) binding is in excess of the mean + 3SDs levels
in normal controls. For our own laboratory, this is > 107nU/ml.
Significant levels of GADA and IA-2A and IA-2bA are those calculated as a ratio of a representative positive
patient serum, and exceeding 99.2% of normal controls. Each laboratory
at present must calculate their own reference cut-off values. In
recent analyses by many laboratories worldwide on quality control
sera sent out from our laboratory, there was remarkable concordance
(>90%) for laboratories in their determinations of antibody positive
versus antibody negative sera.B
Analytical
Recommendation:
ICA are best determined on human, blood group O pancreatic
tail sections, where the pancreas has been obtained surgically from
an organ donor and cubed and frozen within a 4 hour period, and
stored at –800C until used. For IAA a radio-immunoassay
method that calculates the displaceable insulin ligand binding after
addition of excess “cold” insulin is recommended, albeit a micro-method
has been developed recently that appears promising. For IA-2A and
GAD65A, a duel, micro-method, radio-immunoassay performed
with 35S labeled human rIA-2 and tritium labeled human
rGAD65 in a rabbit reticulocyte expression system is
currently used by most laboratories. After labeling, these ligands
are purified by a NAP-10 Sephadex column, they are mixed with the
patients sera and after a overnight incubation, precipitated by
protein-A sepharose and counted in a Packard top-counter and expressed
as a ratio compared to a moderately high tittered standard patients
serum. A similar assay system has been developed for IAA as well.
Whereas these assays are not yet available commercially, they will
soon be. Panels of autoantibodies must be done simultaneously, since
only patients with two or more antibodies are at risk of developing
diabetes, while any one of these four will identify IMD as the diagnosis
when the patient is already diabetic. Such a panel will include
the more specific but least sensitive IA-2b
also in future.(John. This is the section that needs to be fleshed out by
you a bit in the final version).Most
of the islet cell autoantibodies are of the IgG type with all subtypes
represented, including IgG2. IgA and IgM antibodies are described
however. Islet cell autoantibodies react to antigens through conformational
epitopes. Thus, ELISA techniques that rely on linear antigenic epitopes
or denatured antigens, are not satisfactory for such autoantibody
analyses, rather liquid phase reactions using native (undenatured)
antigens as ligands are recommended. In the case of the transmembrane
tyrosine phosphatases IA-2 and IA-2b, the antibodies react almost exclusively
with the N terminus or internal domains. These two phosphatases
share more than 70% overall homologies and autoantibodies reactive
to IA-2b
mostly also react to I-A2, however reactivity is about twice as
common to IA-2 than to IA-2b.
In newly diagnosed patients with type-1 diabetes clinically, ICA
are found in some 75%, GAD65A in some 60%, IA-2A in some
40% and IA-2bA in about half this number. A few
patient sera react exclusively with IA-2b.
- Interpretation
Low levels of autoantibodies
of all kinds are expected even in completely normal persons with no
family history of autoimmune diseases. Islet cell autoantibodies are
no exception. In the context of clinical diabetes, islet cell antibodies
above background can be taken as diagnostic evidence for IMD. The
predictive significance of the autoantibodies based on titer should
be worked out by individual groups for their assays. However for the
standardized ICA, replicate titers in excess of 10 JDF units do predict
an increased risk of diabetes. Similarly, IAA above the mean + 3SDs
of normal controls also predict an increased risk of diabetes, and
when associated with ICA or other antibody, the risk becomes high.
In relatives of a proband with IMD, islet cell antibodies predict
diabetes as mentioned above, however this is also true in the general
population of children. The more of the 5 types of autoantibodies
identified, then the higher the risk of diabetes. Besides those already
mentioned, others such as GLIMA-38 have been identified as associated
with IMD but the prognostic significance has not been established.
There are other islet cell antigens that are yet to be discovered
in the disease, however those available are sufficient for diagnosis
and for disease prediction. In fact, trial of therapies for disease
prevention could be done on relatives on the basis of autoantibodies
alone. This is also true for general populations, however the positivity
rates are distinctly lower than in relatives, so that more have to
be screened to provide at risk subjects needed for the trials.
- Emerging Considerations
The above autoantibodies
are now routine laboratory procedures, and will probably be reconstructed
for auto-analyzers in due course. It is also likely that other islet
cell antigens will be discovered, that could lead to diagnostic and
predictive tests for IMD. The need for such analyses will rise sharply,
when any of a number of possible intervention strategies are finally
proven in man as they have been in mice. Autoantibody screening on
finger stick blood samples appears quite feasible in future, as physician
room or beside tests. The whole panel of antibodies mentioned above
should be done at the one time, to increase their predictive values.
As destructive islet cell autoimmunity proceeds, there is co-incident
spreading of the antigenic/epitopic reactivities. Multiple autoantibodies
when detected give increased specificity for IMD over that for single
type autoantibodies where all have be tested for, but at lower sensitivity.
Population screening of blood samples collected as blood spots on
filter paper is now feasible as well. Much standardization of cellular
responses to islet cell antigens needs to be done before these can
be used reliably for diagnosis or prediction of IMD, however such
is likely in future. In those found to have positive islet cell autoantibodies,
HLA-typings and IVGTT will help define absolute risks of diabetes.
|