Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Accurate understanding of type 1 diabetes risk is critical for optimisation of counselling, monitoring and interventions, yet even within established staging classifications, individual time to clinical disease varies. Previous work has associated IA-2A positivity with increased type 1 diabetes progression but a comprehensive assessment of the impact of screening for IA-2A positivity across the natural history of autoantibody positivity has not been performed. We asked whether IA-2A would consistently be associated with higher risk of progression within and across established stages of type 1 diabetes in a large natural history study.
Methods
Genetic, autoantibody and metabolic data from adult and paediatric autoantibody-negative (n=192) and autoantibody-positive (n=4577) relatives of individuals with type 1 diabetes followed longitudinally in the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study were analysed. Cox regression was used to compare cumulative incidences of clinical diabetes by autoantibody profiles and disease stages.
Results
Compared with IA-2A− individuals, IA-2A+ individuals had higher genetic risk scores and clinical progression risk within single-autoantibody-positive (5.3-fold increased 5 year risk), stage 1 (2.2-fold increased 5 year risk) and stage 2 (1.3-fold increased 5 year risk) type 1 diabetes categories. Individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A showed increased metabolic dysfunction and diabetes progression compared with people who were autoantibody negative, those positive for another single autoantibody, and IA-2A− stage 1 individuals. Individuals at highest risk within the single-IA-2A+ category included children (HR 14.2 [95% CI 1.9, 103.1], p=0.009), individuals with IA-2A titres above the median (HR 3.5 [95% CI 1.9, 6.6], p<0.001), individuals with high genetic risk scores (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.2,1.6], p<0.001) and individuals with HLA DR4-positive status (HR 3.7 [95% CI 1.6, 8.3], p=0.002). When considering all autoantibody-positive individuals, progression risk was similar for euglycaemic IA-2A+ individuals and dysglycaemic IA-2A− individuals.
Conclusions/interpretation
IA-2A positivity is consistently associated with increased progression risk throughout the natural history of type 1 diabetes development. Individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A have a greater risk of disease progression than those who meet stage 1 criteria but who are IA-2A−. Approaches to incorporate IA-2A+ status into monitoring strategies for autoantibody-positive individuals should be considered.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease resulting in insulin deficiency due to destruction of pancreatic beta cells [1]. Often, after the establishment of persistent islet autoimmunity, the disease progresses over years before insulin treatment is required [2]. Early, pre-symptomatic stages of type 1 diabetes can be detected by measuring autoantibodies to islet antigens, including GADA, IAA, IA-2A and ZnT8A [3]. Birth cohort studies suggest that once euglycaemic young individuals develop more than one islet autoantibody, they are at sufficiently high lifetime risk for type 1 diabetes to warrant a classification of stage 1 type 1 diabetes [2, 4]. Stage 2 type 1 diabetes marks those with more than one autoantibody who have progressed past a threshold for metabolic dysfunction, indicated by abnormal glucose levels that do not meet clinical diabetes diagnostic criteria. Stage 3 type 1 diabetes, or clinical type 1 diabetes, is marked by hyperglycaemia that has exceeded the threshold for a clinical diabetes diagnosis [4, 5].
Anzeige
Even within type 1 diabetes stage classifications, the individual time to stage 3 diabetes can vary [6‐8]. Thus, accurate risk prediction is critical for optimal counselling of at-risk individuals for consideration of disease-modifying therapies, as well as for prevention trial design. Multiple features, including genetic profiles, immune markers such as autoantibodies, and metabolic phenotypes, can be used to predict rates of progression to stage 3 diabetes [9‐11].
Given that IA-2A testing is already frequently used within type 1 diabetes screening programmes [12], our objective was to determine whether IA-2A positivity status should be considered for additional stratification of clinical diabetes progression risk that could be applied within and across the current staging paradigm. Based on reports that elevated IA-2A is linked to progression of type 1 diabetes at different timepoints [7, 13, 14], we hypothesised that IA-2A positivity would consistently be associated with higher progression risk across established stages of type 1 diabetes development. We analysed baseline and longitudinal follow-up data from the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of individuals with type 1 diabetes [15]. Data from the following groups of individuals were considered: those who were autoantibody negative; those who were positive for a single autoantibody; those who were positive for multiple autoantibodies with euglycaemia (stage 1 type 1 diabetes) or dysglycaemia (stage 2 type 1 diabetes).
Methods
Study populations and determination of autoantibody status
Demographic, OGTT, and progression data from non-diabetic islet autoantibody-positive and -negative first- and second-degree relatives of individuals with type 1 diabetes in the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention natural history study were considered [15]. Sex, race and ethnicity data were self-reported. Individuals were only considered to be positive for a single islet autoantibody if baseline testing was positive on screening and confirmation. Biochemical autoantibody testing in the Pathway to Prevention used assays included in the Islet Autoantibody Standardization Program, and initially used radiobinding assays for GADA, IA-2A and IAA performed by the Barbara Davis Center; GADA and IA-2A assays were transitioned to harmonised radiobinding assays in 2010 [16, 17]. Radiobinding assays for ZnT8A were adopted in 2012. Until 2019, screening for all biochemical autoantibodies tested were performed for all participants and all confirmed autoantibody-positive participants were monitored with serial OGTTs. In 2019, the Pathway to Prevention protocol was changed to screen only for GADA and IAA, with initial positive screens also tested for IA-2A and ZnT8A and only individuals who were positive for multiple autoantibodies being followed with serial OGTTs. Data were also analysed from a smaller group of paediatric and adult relatives who were screened as autoantibody negative; these individuals were also followed with OGTTs over time [18]. For single-autoantibody positivity, only participants with confirmed autoantibody positivity were analysed. Analyses in multiple-autoantibody-positive groups were limited to two autoantibody-positive individuals to address confounding differences in progression related to total autoantibody number. For analysis of IA-2A, titres above the median for all positive IA-2A results in the Pathway to Prevention cohort were considered as higher positive titres. Participants in this and other type 1 diabetes research studies are overrepresented with non-Hispanic white participants from affluent socioeconomic areas [19]. Given similar distributions amongst antibody positive groups, stratification by sex was not performed as part of the current analysis. Informed consent and assent (as appropriate) were obtained from all participants and studies were approved by the responsible ethics committees, with investigations carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Biochemical measurements
HbA1c, glucose and C-peptide testing from OGTTs were performed as described previously [20]. AUC values were calculated from 2 h OGTT data using the trapezoidal rule. Index60 was calculated as follows:
Anzeige
Index60 = 0.36953 (loge fasting C-peptide) + 0.0165 (60 min glucose) − 0.3644 (60 min C-peptide) [21]
The DPT-1 Risk Score (DPTRS) was modelled based on age, log BMI, log fasting C-peptide, and the glucose and C-peptide sums of 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-min values from OGTTs as described [22].
Genotyping
Genotyping was performed using the T1DExomeChip array (Illumina, CA), which includes >90,000 custom SNPs selected from genetic loci previously associated with autoimmune diseases added to the Infinium CoreExome-24 v.1.1 BeadChip (Illumina, CA). Out of the 67 SNPs in a type 1 diabetes genetic risk score (GRS) 2, described by Sharp et al [23], 32 were directly genotyped. Thirty-two SNPs with a median R2 of 0.997 (minimum 0.858, maximum 0.999) were imputed using the TOPMed Imputation Server with the multiethnic TOPMed reference panel [24, 25]. Five SNPs in the HLA region (rs72848653 [R2=0.999], rs9266268 [R2=0.999], rs16899379 [R2=0.998], rs2524277 [R2=0.995] and rs9268500 [R2=0.925]) were imputed using the Michigan Imputation Server [26]. The code for generating the HLA interaction portion of the T1D GRS2 is freely available online (https://github.com/sethsh7/hla-prs-toolkit).
Statistical analysis
Either t tests or χ2 tests were used to compare continuous characteristics and categorical characteristic frequencies. Since height was not routinely measured in autoantibody-negative relatives, comparisons including this group were adjusted for age but not BMI. Between-group comparisons of time to multiple-autoantibody positivity and clinical diabetes development were examined using Cox regression models with and without adjustments for potentially confounding variables, including baseline age and BMI. Analysis of factors impacting progression within the group of individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A used Cox regression with univariable and multivariate analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Two-sided p values \(<\) 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
The presence of IA-2A is linked to greater likelihood of both metabolic abnormalities and diabetes progression within established stages of type 1 diabetes
We first asked if the presence of IA-2A was associated with increased risk within groups of individuals meeting the criteria for single-autoantibody positivity (n=3392), stage 1 (n=860) or stage 2 (n=323) type 1 diabetes (demographic data are shown in Table 1). Metabolic data are shown in Table 2 and cumulative incidence curves showing rates of progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes using Cox regression analyses are shown in Fig. 1, with 5 year risk provided in Table 3 and 5 year HRs provided in electronic supplementary material (ESM) Table 1. As shown in Table 2, when considered by category (adjusted for age and BMI) IA-2A+ individuals had a more abnormal metabolic phenotype (for single autoantibody: AUC glucose, Index60, DPTRS; for stage 1: AUC glucose, C-peptide 30–0, Index60, DPTRS; for stage 2: C-peptide 30–0, Index60, DPTRS). As shown in Fig. 1a–c, IA-2A+ individuals showed clear increases in rates of progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes vs IA-2A− individuals within each risk category/stage: single-autoantibody-positive individuals (5.3-fold increased 5 year risk); stage 1 individuals (2.2-fold increased 5 year risk); and stage 2 individuals (1.3-fold increased 5 year risk). Within the single-autoantibody-positive group, even when stratified by glycaemic status (euglycaemia vs dysglycaemia), IA-2A positivity increased clinical progression risk (ESM Fig. 1). This association remained statistically significant with adjustment for subsequent development of multiple positive autoantibodies.
Table 1
Demographics at screening
Characteristic
Ab− (n=192)
Single Ab+
Stage 1a
Stage 2a
IA-2A− (n=3229)
IA-2A+ (n=163)
IA-2A− (n=541)
IA-2A+ (n=319)
IA-2A− (n=165)
IA-2A+ (n=158)
Age at draw, years
16.3 (10.44)
21.4 (14.1)*
18.3 (13.5)
12.2 (9.6)
15.0 (10.3)*
15.6 (12.2)
13.4 (9.1)*
% (n) Female sex
52.6 (101)
57.4 (1853)*
47.9 (78)
45.8 (248)
45.1 (144)
46.1 (76)
49.4 (78)
% (n) Black or African American
1.6 (3)
3.1 (101)
1.8 (3)
5.7 (31)
2.8 (9)
6.1 (10)
1.9 (3)
% (n) White
90.6 (174)
83.7 (2704)
91.4 (149)
82.8 (448)
88.1 (281)
84.8 (140)
86.7 (137)
% (n) Hispanic or Latino
6.8 (13)
11.3 (366)
6.7 (11)
9.1 (49)
6.0 (19)
6.1 (10)
10.1 (16)
BMI, kg/m2,b
21.5 (5.1)
22.7 (6.8)*
21.1 (5.3)
19.1 (5.1)
20.9 (5.7)*†
21.1 (6.8)
19.9 (5.6)*
% (n) GADA only
n/a
77.1 (2490)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
% (n) IAA only
n/a
22.8 (736)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
% (n) IA-2A only
n/a
n/a
100 (163)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
% (n) ZnT8A only
n/a
0.1 (3)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
% (n) GADA + IAA
n/a
n/a
n/a
67.8 (367)
0 (0)*
67.3 (111)
0 (0)*
% (n) GADA + IA-2A
n/a
n/a
n/a
0 (0)
76.5 (244)*
0 (0)
72.2 (114)*
% (n) GADA + ZnT8A
n/a
n/a
n/a
29.8 (161)
0 (0)*
29.7 (49)
0 (0)*
% (n) IAA + IA-2A
n/a
n/a
n/a
0 (0)
12.2 (39)*
0 (0)
13.3 (21)*
% (n) IAA + ZnT8A
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.4 (13)
0 (0)*
3.0 (5)
0 (0)*
% (n) IA-2A + ZnT8A
n/a
n/a
n/a
0 (0)
11.3 (36)*
0 (0)
14.6 (23)*
Data shown as mean (SD) unless indicated
aStage 1 and stage 2 groups were limited to positivity for two autoantibodies to address confounding due to total autoantibody number
bBMI data were available for the following numbers of individuals: 22 Ab−; 2986 single Ab+ IA-2A−; 148 single IA-2A+; 504 stage 1 IA-2A−; 295 stage 1 IA-2A+; 157 stage 2 IA-2A−; and 144 stage 2 IA-2A+
*p≤0.05 unadjusted and †p≤0.05 with adjustment for age compared with the corresponding IA-2A+ group (except for the Ab− group, where comparisons are with single IA-2A+)
Ab, autoantibody; n/a, not applicable
Table 2
Metabolic variables for IA-2A− and IA-2A+ relatives of individuals with type 1 diabetes
Variable
Ab− (n=192)
Single Ab+
Stage 1a
Stage 2a
IA-2A− (n=3229)
IA-2A+ (n=163)
IA-2A− (n=541)
IA-2A+ (n=319)
IA-2A− (n=165)
IA-2A+ (n=158)
AUC C-peptide, nmol/l
2.2 (0.8)
2.2 (1.0)
2.1 (1.0)*
1.8 (0.8)
1.8 (0.7)
2.0 (1.0)
1.8 (0.9)*
AUC glucose, nmol/l
6.9 (1.2)†
7.1 (1.3)
7.3 (1.3)*‡
6.8 (1.0)
7.0 (1.0)*‡
8.9 (1.2)
9.0 (1.2)
C-peptide 30–0, nmol/l
1.6 (0.8)†
1.5 (0.9)
1.4 (0.9)*
1.3 (0.8)
1.2 (0.6)*‡
1.2 (0.9)
1.0 (0.6)*#
Index60
−0.4 (0.9)†
−0.4 (1.2)
−0.06 (1.2)*‡
−0.06 (1.0)
0.04 (0.9)‡
0.7 (1.2)
1.1 (1.0)*‡
DPTRSb
n/a
5.6 (1.3)
6.1 (1.4) *‡
6.1 (1.0)
6.2 (1.0)‡
7.1 (1.2)
7.5 (1.1)*‡
Data are shown as mean (SD)
aStage 1 and stage 2 groups were limited to positivity for two autoantibodies to address confounding due to total autoantibody number
bDPTRS available for only 3013 single Ab+ IA−2A− and 146 single-IA-2A+ individuals
*p≤0.05 unadjusted and ‡p≤0.05 with adjustment for age and BMI compared with corresponding IA-2A+ group
†p≤0.05 both unadjusted and adjusted for age and BMI compared with single-IA-2A+ group
‡p≤0.05 with adjustment for age and BMI compared with corresponding IA-2A+ group
Ab, autoantibody; AUC C-peptide 30–0, OGTT 30−0 min C-peptide
Fig. 1
IA-2A positivity is associated with increased progression to stage 3 (clinical) type 1 diabetes within established current stages of type 1 diabetes. Cumulative incidence curves comparing progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes between IA-2A− and IA-2A+ individuals with single-autoantibody positivity (a), stage 1 type 1 diabetes (b) and stage 2 type 1 diabetes (c). Created in BioRender. Sims, E. (2025) https://BioRender.com/p41p030
Risk comparisons for IA-2A+ and IA-2A− individuals by type 1 diabetes stage
Parameter
Confirmed single-autoantibody positive
Stage 1a
Stage 2a
IA-2A− (n=3229)
IA-2A+* (n=163)
IA-2A− (n=541)
IA-2A*‡ (n=319)
IA-2A− (n=165)
IA-2A*‡ (n=158)
5 year MAB+ % risk
27.1 (24.7, 29.6)
19.8 (11.0, 33.9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5 year T1D % risk
7.9 (6.7, 9.4)
42.1 (32.7, 53.1)
15.4 (11.2, 20.9)†
33.9 (27.5, 41.4)
54.2 (43.4, 65.7)‡
71.3 (61.9, 80.1)
Data are shown as % risk from baseline OGTT (95% CI)
aStage 1 and stage 2 groups were limited to positivity for two autoantibodies
*p≤0.05, with and without adjustment for age and BMI, for comparison of IA-2A− vs IA-2A+ groups within stages; for individuals with confirmed single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A+, the comparison remained statistically significant after adjustment for subsequent development of multiple-autoantibody positivity
†p≤0.05 compared with single-IA-2A+ status, with and without adjustment for age and BMI; comparisons were performed across stages to compare IA-2A− vs IA-2A+ groups
‡p≤0.05 compared with stage 1 IA-2A+, with and without adjustment for age and BMI; comparisons were performed across stages to compare IA-2A− vs IA-2A+ groups
MAB, multiple autoantibody, n/a, not applicable; T1D, type 1 diabetes
In individuals positive for a single autoantibody, despite the approximate fivefold increase in progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes, the 5 year risk of multiple autoantibody development was lower (but not statistically different) in the IA-2A+ group than in the IA-2A− group (19.8% [95% CI 11.0, 33.9] vs 27.1% [95% CI 24.7, 29.6]; age- and BMI-adjusted p=0.287) (Table 3).
Individuals positive for a single autoantibody who are IA-2A+ exhibit an increased risk of progression compared with individuals positive for other single autoantibodies or IA-2A− individuals meeting stage 1 type 1 diabetes criteria
Given the increased risk profiles associated with IA-2A positivity within established type 1 diabetes stages, we next examined whether IA-2A positivity was linked to differences in metabolic phenotypes and progression risk across staging categories. We first considered the group of individuals who were positive for a single autoantibody, who were not classified as early-stage type 1 diabetes, and overall were considered to be at low risk for disease progression [4]. Importantly, the single-autoantibody-positive IA-2A+ population exhibited substantial metabolic compromise (manifested by higher AUC glucose, lower C-peptide 30–0, and higher Index60 values) when compared with demographically similar autoantibody-negative relatives, suggesting a relatively advanced disease process despite only manifesting a single measured autoantibody (Table 2).
We next asked whether the presence of single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A identifies greater metabolic abnormality and/or risk of disease compared with established type 1 diabetes stages (Table 2). Compared with IA-2A− individuals meeting stage 1 criteria, after adjustment for age and BMI, single-autoantibody (IA-2A)-positive individuals exhibited higher AUC glucose (unadjusted/age and BMI-adjusted p<0.001), Index60 (p=0.79/0.026) and DPTRS (p=0.98/p<0.001). The differences in p values after adjustment were likely attributable to the older age in the group positive for a single autoantibody (IA-2A+) (21.4±14.1 vs 12.2±9.6 years, Table 1), given that older age is typically associated with lower progression risk. Absolute mean AUC C-peptide values were higher in the single-IA-2A+ compared with the stage 1 group but the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for older age and BMI (unadjusted/adjusted p<0.001/p=0.19). Cumulative incidence curves and Cox regression analyses are shown in Fig. 2a. Compared with IA-2A− individuals meeting stage 1 criteria, single-autoantibody-positive IA-2A+ individuals had a 2.5-fold increased 5 year risk of stage 3 type 1 diabetes (42.1% [95% CI 32.7, 53.1] vs 16.8% [95% CI 12.7, 22.0]; unadjusted/age- and BMI-adjusted both p<0.001).
Fig. 2
Single-autoantibody-positive IA-2A+ individuals exhibit substantial risk of stage 3 (clinical) type 1 diabetes progression. Cumulative incidence curves comparing progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes for single-IA-2A+ individuals vs IA-2A− individuals with stage 1 disease (a), single-IA-2A+ individuals vs IA-2A− individuals with stage 2 disease (b) and individuals with stage 1 disease who are IA-2A+ vs individuals with stage 2 disease who are IA-2A− (c). Created in BioRender. Sims, E. (2025) https://BioRender.com/u93u720
As might be predicted based on established staging criteria, IA-2A− individuals meeting criteria for stage 2 disease showed substantial metabolic abnormalities, with lower 30–0 C-peptide (unadjusted/age and BMI-adjusted p=0.029/0.044) and higher AUC glucose, Index60 and DPTRS (unadjusted/age and BMI-adjusted both p<0.001) compared with single-autoantibody-positive IA-2A+ individuals (Table 2). As shown in Table 3, Cox regression showed increased association with progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes for stage 2 individuals who were IA-2A− vs those who were singly positive for IA-2A+, although the difference was not as pronounced as might be expected (1.3-fold increased progression; Fig. 2b) and was not statistically significantly different after adjustment for age and BMI (54.2% [95% CI 43.4, 65.7] vs 42.1% [95% CI 32.7, 53.1], unadjusted/age- and BMI-adjusted p=0.015/p=0.082). Comparison between IA-2A+ stage 1 and IA-2A− stage 2 individuals (Fig. 2c) also showed statistically significant higher progression rates in stage 2 (unadjusted/age and BMI-adjusted both p<0.001).
IA-2A positivity is associated with increased genetic risk for type 1 diabetes
To test the hypothesis that IA-2A+ individuals are distinct from those testing positive for other autoantibodies, we applied GRS2 scores to compare genetic predisposition to type 1 diabetes among individuals who were screened and confirmed as IA-2A+ vs those who were autoantibody positive but IA-2A− (Fig. 3a). In the single-autoantibody-positive groups, those positive for IA-2A exhibited higher GRS2 scores than those negative for IA-2A. Similarly, among individuals positive for multiple autoantibodies, the IA-2A+ individuals had higher GRS2 values than the IA-2A− individuals. Intriguingly, consistent with the aforementioned metabolic and progression data, no statistically significant differences in GRS2 values were present between IA-2A+ single-autoantibody-positive individuals and IA-2A− multiple-autoantibody-positive individuals. In aggregate, these data suggest that the presence of IA-2A is linked to increased genetic risk of type 1 diabetes, and that single-IA-2A+ individuals are at similar genetic risk to those who are IA-2A− but meet the criteria for stage 1 disease.
Fig. 3
IA-2A positivity is linked to increased genetic risk and stage 3 (clinical) type 1 diabetes progression across traditional risk stratifications used for staging. (a) Individuals who are positive for a single autoantibody (Ab+) and multiple-autoantibody-positive individuals who are positive for IA-2A are at higher genetic risk for type 1 diabetes compared with single-autoantibody-positive or multiple-autoantibody-positive individuals who are IA-2A− (p<0.001 for both comparisons). Violin plots show GRS (GRS2) density for each group based on autoantibody number and IA-2A status. The lower and upper hinges of the boxplot correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). The whiskers extend to the values 1.5 × the interquartile range from the hinges. The yellow line represents mean GRS2 values for individuals who progressed to type 1 diabetes during follow-up (progressors); the blue line represents mean GRS2 values for individuals who did not develop diabetes during follow-up (non-progressors). (b) Progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes for all autoantibody-positive participants stratified by glycaemia or by IA-2A status. T1D, type 1 diabetes. Created in BioRender. Sims, E. (2025) https://BioRender.com/n69h182
Identification of features linked to high stage 3 progression risk in single-autoantibody-positive IA-2A+ individuals
Practically, features identifying individuals who are singly positive for IA-2A at the highest risk would be helpful for determining monitoring approaches and consideration for disease modification trials in this group. Therefore, we asked whether baseline participant features previously linked to increased progression risk (IA-2A titre, paediatric age, higher GRS2), and linked to IA-2A positivity (presence of HLA-DR4 genotype), could help inform subsequent risk of stage 3 clinical progression in individuals positive for a single autoantibody (IA-2A+) [13, 27‐29]. For titres, values were considered high if they were above the median for the entire IA-2A+ study population. Univariate Cox regression (shown in Table 4) identified each of these features, particularly belonging to the paediatric age group, as being statistically significantly associated with increased stage 3 progression. Multivariate Cox regression showed similar relationships, but HLA-DR4 was no longer statistically significant, likely due to overlap with the GRS2 score. Additionally, we tested whether subsequent conversion to multiple-autoantibody positivity (thus meeting criteria for stage 1 or 2 type 1 diabetes) was associated with increased risk of progression to stage 3. Here, among the single-IA-2A+ population, those who converted to multiple-autoantibody positivity during follow-up were at markedly increased risk of clinical disease progression: HR 31.9 (95% CI 4.4, 231.8), p<0.001.
Table 4
Risk factors for stage 3 progression in individuals who screen and confirm single-autoantibody positivity (IA-2A)
Variable
HR (95% CI)
p value
Univariate analysis
IA-2A titre above median
3.5 (1.9, 6.6)
<0.001
Age <18 years
14.2 (1.9, 103.1)
0.009
DR4 positivity
3.7 (1.6, 8.3)
0.002
GRS2
1.4 (1.2, 1.6)
<0.001
Multivariate analysis
IA-2A titre above median
1.9 (1.0, 3.8)
0.047
Age <18 years
14.0 (1.9, 102.6)
0.009
DR4 positivity
1.6 (0.6, 4.2)
0.321
GRS2
1.2 (1.0, 1.5)
0.025
n=110 for multivariate analysis
Across autoantibody-positive groups, progression rates are similar in dysglycaemic IA-2A− individuals and euglycaemic IA-2A+ individuals
Finally, we asked how, as a distinct risk factor, the link between IA-2A positivity and progression to clinical/stage 3 disease compared with dysglycaemia, a well-established risk factor that is part of the definition of stage 2 type 1 diabetes. Figure 3b shows cumulative incidence of stage 3 disease in the entire autoantibody-positive population stratified by the presence or absence of either IA-2A positivity or dysglycaemia. Here, dysglycaemic IA-2A− individuals had a similar rate of progression when compared with euglycaemic IA-2A+ individuals.
Anzeige
Discussion
Accurate understanding of type 1 diabetes risk is critical to optimisation of counselling, monitoring and interventions for at-risk individuals. The current approach to staging early type 1 diabetes is based on natural history data showing increased rates of progression to clinical disease based on islet autoantibody numbers coupled with the presence or absence of dysglycaemia [2, 4]. However, additional individual features could more precisely define the varying rates of progression within staging categories. This is especially critical in single-autoantibody-positive individuals who exhibit early signs of islet autoimmunity but who, as a group, are traditionally categorised as low risk and so are not even included in current asymptomatic type 1 diabetes ‘staging’ paradigms. Such increased precision could ultimately improve management and prevention strategies as well as inform efforts to understand mechanisms underlying different immunomodulatory therapies. In the current work, we identify IA-2A positivity as a feature consistently associated with increased genetic risk and rates of clinical diabetes progression before, within and across early stages of type 1 diabetes. In fact, the presence of a positive IA-2A titre without dysglycaemia was associated with only slightly lower risk of clinical disease progression than IA-2A− individuals with dysglycaemia, a feature used to define relatively advanced, stage 2 disease.
Comparison with autoantibody-negative relatives showed substantial metabolic abnormalities in individuals positive for IA-2A only, who would be classified as lower risk based on autoantibody number in the current staging system. Interestingly, birth cohorts have shown that IA-2A is rarely the first positive islet autoantibody at the time of seroconversion [30‐32]. Combined with epitope analyses, these data could be consistent with the idea that development of IA-2A positivity reflects epitope spreading/progressing islet autoimmunity due to beta cell destruction [33, 34]. We speculate that it is possible that individuals positive for only IA-2A, identified via cross-sectional screening, have a prior history of multiple-autoantibody positivity, with subsequent reversion of seropositivity for other autoantibodies. Although impossible to test in this cross-sectional screening cohort, such prior history could explain our observed increases in rates of progression of individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A to stage 3 disease. This would also be consistent with similar observed genetic risk for type 1 diabetes among individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A and those who are multiple-autoantibody-positive. Alternatively, individuals only positive for IA-2A may exhibit more rapid progression across each stage of disease, without intervening detection of early type 1 diabetes stages. Regardless, an understanding of the implications of single-IA-2A positivity at the time of screening is critical for clinical implementation, given that most individuals identified moving forward as part of clinical care will not be participating in a birth cohort study. This study takes an important step in this direction by identifying single-IA-2A+ groups at the highest risk: children; and individuals with markedly elevated IA-2A titres and higher genetic risk or DR4 positivity.
Other smaller studies have identified IA-2A positivity as a feature linked to more rapid progression at different time points relative to clinical disease. For example, 37 children participating in birth cohorts with a single-IA-2A autoantibody had faster rates of progression than those with single-autoantibody positivity for GADA or IAA [2]. The presence of IA-2A was also associated with increased progression in multiple-autoantibody-positive children identified via cross-sectional autoantibody screening, with IA-2A positivity and titre identified as a statistically significant contributor to a progression score predicting likelihood of more rapid progression to stage 3 [7, 13]. Positive IA-2A titres increase in the years preceding diagnosis among individuals who progress to disease [27]. Here, we chose to focus mostly on IA-2A+ or IA-2A− status, rather than quantification of titre elevation, as a pragmatic read-out that could be easily applied across screening and testing platforms. However, as noted in our single-autoantibody analysis, titres could be applied to optimise performance of this marker. Overall, our work complements and expands these combined analyses by demonstrating that, in a large group of individuals screened for IA-2A, the presence of IA-2A is associated with increased stage 3 type 1 diabetes risk at all stages of islet autoimmunity and is linked to more rapid progression in individuals positive for IA-2A alone than in those at stage 1 who are IA-2A−.
A limitation of this analysis is that, like all modern longitudinal type 1 diabetes natural history studies, the TrialNet protocol for autoantibody screening has changed over time, with the addition of ZnT8A starting in 2012 and screening for IA-2A and ZnT8A restricted to those with IAA+ or GADA+ status after 2019, impacting our numbers of individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A and ZnT8A. It is possible that earlier inclusion of ZnT8A testing would have classified larger numbers of individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A as being double-autoantibody positive. However, like IA-2A, ZnT8A is also infrequently an initial positive autoantibody at seroconversion and appears to be more associated with epitope spreading [33], suggesting IA-2A+/ZnT8A+ as an uncommon initial autoantibody combination at seroconversion. Furthermore, even with changes to initial testing, the current study represents a large cohort of individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A. Other studies have shown that assays distinguishing low- vs high-affinity islet autoantibodies can improve predictive value of diabetes progression in single-autoantibody-positive individuals [35]. Although our testing did not include these types of assays, inclusion could potentially allow for further stratification of single-autoantibody-positive individuals. IA-2A has been shown to most optimally identify individuals at high risk for progression as part of a model or score that incorporates multiple risk factors [11, 13]. Analyses integrating this measure into current models in a practical and clinically meaningful manner that offers improved prediction over and above current risk stratification (such as in the small but important subset of single-IA-2A+ individuals) could help to identify optimal approaches to application. We did not study the impact of sex on associations of IA-2A with disease progression, but this could be considered as part of future analyses.
Anzeige
In conclusion, our analyses suggest that, particularly for individuals identified as autoantibody positive via cross-sectional screening, the presence of IA-2A positivity at baseline is linked to increased risk of clinical diabetes progression. Cross-sectional screening for the presence of abnormal IA-2A provides important perspective on the natural history of type 1 diabetes and potentially could be applied to further hone and stratify disease staging. IA-2A positivity is particularly appealing for stratification of staging given that it is typically obtained as part of the staging process and thus would be a relatively simple, straightforward marker to interpret. Application could be relevant to diabetes prediction as well as enrolment into prevention studies. Especially given the substantial risk of progression for individuals with single-autoantibody positivity for IA-2A, IA-2A testing should be included as part of initial islet autoantibody screening. Furthermore, predictive implications of IA-2A positivity status should be tested and applied to risk estimations for individuals with autoantibody positivity to guide monitoring approaches and consideration for disease modification aimed at prevention and delay.
The Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group is a clinical trials network currently funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, through the cooperative agreements U01 DK061010, U01 DK061034, U01 DK061042, U01 DK061058, U01 DK085461, U01 DK085465, U01 DK085466, U01 DK085476, U01 DK085499, U01 DK085509, U01 DK103180, U01 DK103153, U01 DK103266, U01 DK103282, U01 DK106984, U01 DK106994, U01 DK107013, U01 DK107014, U01 DK106993, UC4 DK117009 and Breakthrough T1D (formerly known as JDRF). EKS receives support from NIH grants R01DK121929, R01DK133881 and U01DK127382–012. MJR and RAO have received support from NIH R01 DK121843-01. EKS is also supported by the Showalter Scholar Program, as well as the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (grant 2021258) through the COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists collaborative grant programme and supported by the John Templeton Foundation (grant 62288). RAO is supported by a Diabetes UK Harry Keen Fellowship (16/0005529) and RAO and LF by a Breakthrough T1D (formerly known as JDRF) strategic research agreement (3-SRA-2019-827-S-B). HMI is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes And Digestive And Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award no. K23DK129799. RAO previously had UK Medical Research Council funding to develop a type 1 diabetes GRS biochip with Randox and reports research funding from Randox.
Authors’ relationships and activities
EKS has received compensation for educational lectures on diabetes screening from MedLearning Group, Medscape, Health Matters CME and Sanofi and consulting for DRI Healthcare and Sanofi. RAO reports consulting for Janssen, Provention Bio and Sanofi and receives research funding from Randox. MR is a member of the editorial board of Diabetologia. BN has received compensation for educational lectures on diabetes screening from MedLearning Group. CEM serves on advisory boards for Isla Technologies, Avotres, DiogenyX, Neurodon. LAD reports research funding to the institution from Sanofi and from Lilly/Zealand/Mankind, acting as a consultant for Vertex and Tandem, receiving lecture fees from Sanofi, serving as a DSMB member for Lilly/Merck, and having shares in Lilly stock. The authors declare that there are no other relationships or activities that might bias, or be perceived to bias, their work.
Contribution statement
EKS and JMS conceived the project, analysed data and wrote and edited the manuscript. DC, LF and RO designed and performed analyses and edited the manuscript. EB, CEM, LJ, BN, HI, LAD and MR interpreted results and edited and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. EKS is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
IA-2A positivity increases risk of progression within and across established stages of type 1 diabetes
Verfasst von
Emily K. Sims
David Cuthbertson
Lauric A. Ferrat
Emanuele Bosi
Carmella Evans-Molina
Linda A. DiMeglio
Brandon M. Nathan
Heba M. Ismail
Laura M. Jacobsen
Maria J. Redondo
Richard A. Oram
Jay M. Sosenko
Insel RA, Dunne JL, Atkinson MA et al (2015) Staging presymptomatic type 1 diabetes: a scientific statement of JDRF, the Endocrine Society, and the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 38(10):1964–1974. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-1419CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR et al (2023) 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care 46(Suppl 1):S19–S40. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-S002CrossRefPubMed
6.
Nathan BM, Redondo MJ, Ismail H et al (2022) Index60 identifies individuals at appreciable risk for stage 3 among an autoantibody-positive population with normal 2-hour glucose levels: implications for current staging criteria of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 45(2):311–318. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-0944CrossRefPubMed
7.
Jacobsen LM, Bocchino L, Evans-Molina C et al (2020) The risk of progression to type 1 diabetes is highly variable in individuals with multiple autoantibodies following screening. Diabetologia 63(3):588–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-05047-wCrossRefPubMed
8.
Frohnert BI, Ghalwash M, Li Y et al (2023) Refining the definition of stage 1 type 1 diabetes: an ontology-driven analysis of the heterogeneity of multiple islet autoimmunity. Diabetes Care 46(10):1753–1761. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-1960CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Ferrat LA, Vehik K, Sharp SA et al (2022) Author correction: a combined risk score enhances prediction of type 1 diabetes among susceptible children. Nat Med 28(3):599. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01631-zCrossRefPubMed
10.
Mathieu C, Lahesmaa R, Bonifacio E, Achenbach P, Tree T (2018) Immunological biomarkers for the development and progression of type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 61(11):2252–2258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-018-4726-8CrossRefPubMed
Sanda S, Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study G (2018) Increasing ICA512 autoantibody titers predict development of abnormal oral glucose tolerance tests. Pediatr Diabetes 19(2):271–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12542CrossRefPubMed
Bonifacio E, Yu L, Williams AK et al (2010) Harmonization of glutamic acid decarboxylase and islet antigen-2 autoantibody assays for national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases consortia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95(7):3360–3367. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-0293CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Marzinotto I, Pittman DL, Williams AJK et al (2023) Islet autoantibody standardization program: interlaboratory comparison of insulin autoantibody assay performance in 2018 and 2020 workshops. Diabetologia 66(5):897–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-023-05877-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Mahon JL, Sosenko JM, Rafkin-Mervis L et al (2009) The TrialNet Natural History Study of the Development of Type 1 Diabetes: objectives, design, and initial results. Pediatr Diabetes 10(2):97–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5448.2008.00464.xCrossRefPubMed
Sims EK, Cuthbertson D, Jacobsen L et al (2024) Comparisons of metabolic measures to predict T1D vs detect a preventive treatment effect in high-risk individuals. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 109(8):2116–2123. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgae048CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Sosenko JM, Skyler JS, DiMeglio LA et al (2015) A new approach for diagnosing type 1 diabetes in autoantibody-positive individuals based on prediction and natural history. Diabetes Care 38(2):271–276. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc14-1813CrossRefPubMed
22.
Sosenko JM, Skyler JS, Mahon J et al (2012) The application of the diabetes prevention trial-type 1 risk score for identifying a preclinical state of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 35(7):1552–1555. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Sharp SA, Rich SS, Wood AR et al (2019) Development and standardization of an improved type 1 diabetes genetic risk score for use in newborn screening and incident diagnosis. Diabetes Care 42(2):200–207. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-1785CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Sosenko JM, Skyler JS, Palmer JP et al (2011) A longitudinal study of GAD65 and ICA512 autoantibodies during the progression to type 1 diabetes in Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) participants. Diabetes Care 34(11):2435–2437. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-0981CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Howson JM, Stevens H, Smyth DJ et al (2011) Evidence that HLA class I and II associations with type 1 diabetes, autoantibodies to GAD and autoantibodies to IA-2, are distinct. Diabetes 60(10):2635–2644. https://doi.org/10.2337/db11-0131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Genovese S, Bonfanti R, Bazzigaluppi E et al (1996) Association of IA-2 autoantibodies with HLA DR4 phenotypes in IDDM. Diabetologia 39(10):1223–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02658510CrossRefPubMed
Ziegler AG, Hummel M, Schenker M, Bonifacio E (1999) Autoantibody appearance and risk for development of childhood diabetes in offspring of parents with type 1 diabetes: the 2-year analysis of the German BABYDIAB Study. Diabetes 48(3):460–468. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.48.3.460CrossRefPubMed
Vehik K, Bonifacio E, Lernmark A et al (2020) Hierarchical order of distinct autoantibody spreading and progression to type 1 diabetes in the TEDDY study. Diabetes Care 43(9):2066–2073. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-2547CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Kawasaki E, Yu L, Rewers MJ, Hutton JC, Eisenbarth GS (1998) Definition of multiple ICA512/phogrin autoantibody epitopes and detection of intramolecular epitope spreading in relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 47(5):733–742. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.47.5.733CrossRefPubMed
35.
He L, Jia X, Rasmussen CG et al (2022) High-throughput multiplex electrochemiluminescence assay applicable to general population screening for type 1 diabetes and celiac disease. Diabetes Technol Ther 24(7):502–509. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0517CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
In einer Kohortenstudie wurde ein Zusammenhang zwischen oralen Bakterien und Pilzen und dem Auftreten von Pankreaskarzinomen gesehen. Diese Assoziation könnte helfen, Patientinnen und Patienten für gezielte Vorsorgeuntersuchungen ausfindig zu machen.
Ein Team aus Frankreich hat Fälle von plötzlichem Herzstillstand während des Paris-Marathons ausgewertet. In fast 90% waren Männer betroffen, und zwar überwiegend auf dem letzten Kilometer vor dem Ziel.
Patienten mit Adipositas weisen erniedrigte Spiegel des N-terminalen pro-B-Typ-natriuretischen Peptids (NT-ProBNP) auf. Ob sich das auf die NT-proBNP-gestützte Diagnostik von Herzinsuffizienz auswirkt, haben britische Mediziner untersucht.
Auch 2025 gab es wieder neue Studien, deren Ergebnisse zu einer Optimierung der symptomatischen und prognoseverbessernden Therapie bei Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz in der Praxis beitragen könnten.
