Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes
Abstract Aims/Introduction This study aimed to compare the positivity rates of glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies (GADA) and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ (3 Screen ICA), a newly developed assay for the simultaneous measurement of GADA, insulinoma‐associated antigen‐2 autoantibodies (IA‐2A), and z...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-07-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Diabetes Investigation |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.14016 |
| _version_ | 1827918976869466112 |
|---|---|
| author | Nobuaki Takehana Tomoyasu Fukui Yusaku Mori Munenori Hiromura Michishige Terasaki Makoto Ohara Michiya Takada Masako Tomoyasu Yoshihisa Ito Tetsuro Kobayashi Sho‐ichi Yamagishi |
| author_facet | Nobuaki Takehana Tomoyasu Fukui Yusaku Mori Munenori Hiromura Michishige Terasaki Makoto Ohara Michiya Takada Masako Tomoyasu Yoshihisa Ito Tetsuro Kobayashi Sho‐ichi Yamagishi |
| author_sort | Nobuaki Takehana |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Aims/Introduction This study aimed to compare the positivity rates of glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies (GADA) and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ (3 Screen ICA), a newly developed assay for the simultaneous measurement of GADA, insulinoma‐associated antigen‐2 autoantibodies (IA‐2A), and zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies (ZnT8A), in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes (SPIDDM). Materials and Methods We enrolled 53 patients with SPIDDM who were positive for GADA at the diagnosis and 98 non‐diabetic individuals, and investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the 3 Screen ICA (cutoff index ≥30 units) compared with that of GADA. In addition, we compared the clinical characteristics of patients with SPIDDM who were negative or positive on 3 Screen ICA. Results The positivity rates of 3 Screen ICA, GADA, IA‐2A, and ZnT8A were 88.7, 86.8, 24.5, and 13.2%, respectively. The respective sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for SPIDDM were 88.7, 100, 100, and 94.2% by 3 Screen ICA and 86.8, 100, 100.0, and 93.3% by GADA. There were no significant differences in age at onset, duration of diabetes, body mass index, glycated hemoglobin and C‐peptide levels, and the prevalence of autoimmune thyroiditis between patients with SPIDDM who were positive or negative on 3 Screen ICA. However, the prevalence of insulin users was significantly higher in those who were positive than in those who were negative on 3 Screen ICA. Conclusions Similar to GADA, 3 Screen ICA may be a useful diagnostic tool for detecting patients with SPIDDM. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T03:51:14Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ccf155f05aba41eeaa310a9ea7bbecf1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2040-1116 2040-1124 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T03:51:14Z |
| publishDate | 2023-07-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Diabetes Investigation |
| spelling | doaj.art-ccf155f05aba41eeaa310a9ea7bbecf12023-06-22T13:46:55ZengWileyJournal of Diabetes Investigation2040-11162040-11242023-07-0114785686310.1111/jdi.14016Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetesNobuaki Takehana0Tomoyasu Fukui1Yusaku Mori2Munenori Hiromura3Michishige Terasaki4Makoto Ohara5Michiya Takada6Masako Tomoyasu7Yoshihisa Ito8Tetsuro Kobayashi9Sho‐ichi Yamagishi10Division of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo JapanDivision of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo JapanDivision of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo JapanDivision of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo JapanDivision of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo JapanDivision of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo JapanDepartment of Internal Medicine Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital Kanagawa JapanDepartment of Internal Medicine Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital Kanagawa JapanEiju General Hospital Tokyo JapanDivision of Immunology and Molecular Medicine Okinaka Memorial Institute for Medical Research Tokyo JapanDivision of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo JapanAbstract Aims/Introduction This study aimed to compare the positivity rates of glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies (GADA) and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ (3 Screen ICA), a newly developed assay for the simultaneous measurement of GADA, insulinoma‐associated antigen‐2 autoantibodies (IA‐2A), and zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies (ZnT8A), in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes (SPIDDM). Materials and Methods We enrolled 53 patients with SPIDDM who were positive for GADA at the diagnosis and 98 non‐diabetic individuals, and investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the 3 Screen ICA (cutoff index ≥30 units) compared with that of GADA. In addition, we compared the clinical characteristics of patients with SPIDDM who were negative or positive on 3 Screen ICA. Results The positivity rates of 3 Screen ICA, GADA, IA‐2A, and ZnT8A were 88.7, 86.8, 24.5, and 13.2%, respectively. The respective sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for SPIDDM were 88.7, 100, 100, and 94.2% by 3 Screen ICA and 86.8, 100, 100.0, and 93.3% by GADA. There were no significant differences in age at onset, duration of diabetes, body mass index, glycated hemoglobin and C‐peptide levels, and the prevalence of autoimmune thyroiditis between patients with SPIDDM who were positive or negative on 3 Screen ICA. However, the prevalence of insulin users was significantly higher in those who were positive than in those who were negative on 3 Screen ICA. Conclusions Similar to GADA, 3 Screen ICA may be a useful diagnostic tool for detecting patients with SPIDDM.https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.140163 Screen ICA, Islet autoantibodies, Slowly progressive insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus |
| spellingShingle | Nobuaki Takehana Tomoyasu Fukui Yusaku Mori Munenori Hiromura Michishige Terasaki Makoto Ohara Michiya Takada Masako Tomoyasu Yoshihisa Ito Tetsuro Kobayashi Sho‐ichi Yamagishi Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes Journal of Diabetes Investigation 3 Screen ICA, Islet autoantibodies, Slowly progressive insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus |
| title | Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes |
| title_full | Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes |
| title_short | Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes |
| title_sort | comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and elisarsr™ 3 screen ica™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes |
| topic | 3 Screen ICA, Islet autoantibodies, Slowly progressive insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.14016 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nobuakitakehana comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT tomoyasufukui comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT yusakumori comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT munenorihiromura comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT michishigeterasaki comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT makotoohara comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT michiyatakada comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT masakotomoyasu comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT yoshihisaito comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT tetsurokobayashi comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes AT shoichiyamagishi comparisonofpositiveratesbetweenglutamicaciddecarboxylaseantibodiesandelisarsr3screenicainrecentlyobtainedserafrompatientswhohadbeenpreviouslydiagnosedwithslowlyprogressivetype1diabetes |