HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: dc07-1459v1 dc07-1459v2 31/3/528    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Sosenko, J. M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sosenko, J. M. Related Collections Related Article Social Bookmarking                What's this?

A Risk Score for Type 1 Diabetes Derived From Autoantibody-Positive Participants in the Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1

¹ Division of Endocrinology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
² Division of Informatics and Biostatistics, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
³ Division of Endocrinology/Metabolism, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
⁴ Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada
⁵ National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases/National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
⁶ Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason, Seattle, Washington
⁷ Pediatrics Epidemiology Center, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
⁸ Biostatistics Center, George Washington Unviersity, Rockville, Maryland

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jay M. Sosenko, MD, Division of Endocrinology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 016960 (D110), Miami, FL 33101. E-mail: jsosenko{at}med.miami.edu

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS-- CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
OBJECTIVE—The accurate prediction of type 1 diabetes is essential for appropriately identifying prevention trial participants. Thus, we have developed a risk score for the prediction of type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 (DPT-1) participants, islet cell autoantibody (ICA)-positive relatives of type 1 diabetic patients (n = 670), were randomly divided into development and validation samples. Risk score values were calculated for the validation sample from development sample model coefficients obtained through forward stepwise proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS—A risk score based on a model including log-BMI, age, log-fasting C-peptide, and postchallenge glucose and C-peptide sums from 2-h oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) was derived from the development sample. The baseline risk score strongly predicted type 1 diabetes in the validation sample (² = 82.3, P < 0.001). Its strength of prediction was almost the same (² = 83.3) as a risk score additionally dependent on a decreased first-phase insulin response variable from intravenous glucose tolerance tests (IVGTTs). Biochemical autoantibodies did not contribute significantly to the risk score model. A final type 1 diabetes risk score was then derived from all participants with the same variables as those in the development sample model. The change in the type 1 diabetes risk score from baseline to 1 year was in itself also highly predictive of type 1 diabetes (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS—A risk score based on age, BMI, and OGTT indexes, without dependence on IVGTTs or additional autoantibodies, appears to accurately predict type 1 diabetes in ICA-positive relatives.

Abbreviations: DPT-1, Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 • FPIR, first-phase insulin response • GAD65; glutamic acid decarboxylase • HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance • ICA, islet cell autoantibody • IVGTT, intravenous glucose tolerance test • mIAA, microinsulin antibodies • OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS-- CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
The increased understanding of the immune pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes has raised the possibility that interventions could delay or prevent its occurrence. This has led to the performance of prevention trials (the European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial and the Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 [DPT-1]) to test interventions in individuals with autoimmune pre-diabetes (1–3). Although there was no overall treatment effect in these trials, they have shown that it is now possible to perform such studies using prediction methodologies. The recruitment of individuals with prespecified degrees of risk was successfully achieved through the assessment of relatives of type 1 diabetic patients with autoantibody determinations and metabolic testing.

Despite this measure of success, there is still a need to improve prediction methodology for type 1 diabetes. Efficiency could be enhanced by refining test selection and interpreting test results more meaningfully. Procedures for assessing risk have involved oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) and intravenous glucose tolerance tests (IVGTTs); yet, it is not known whether both tests are necessary for prediction. Also, since the magnitude of glucose levels within the normal range has been shown to be indicative of type 1 diabetes risk (4), traditional definitions of hyperglycemia, such as impaired glucose tolerance, might not maximize the OGTT's value for prediction.

Besides improving accuracy and efficiency, a quantitative, standardized approach to prediction should also be helpful. Outcomes across trials could then be interpreted in the context of target populations with clearly defined risk. Although the European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial and DPT-1 utilized similar methods for prediction, there were still substantial differences. Such an approach might also lead to improved monitoring of the progression to type 1 diabetes.

The most extensive information available for developing prediction strategies for type 1 diabetes resides in the data from the two insulin intervention trials that constituted DPT-1. Using the DPT-1 data, a risk score was developed to refine the prediction of type 1 diabetes in relatives of patients.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS-- CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
Of 97,273 samples assessed for islet cell autoantibodies (ICAs), 3.6% were positive. Of 711 individuals who participated in the DPT-1 insulin trials, data from 670 (n = 356 for the parenteral insulin trial and n = 314 for the oral insulin trial) were analyzed. Inclusion was based on data completeness for covariates used to develop predictive models. Most of the exclusions were due to absent BMI determinations (n = 26).

The risk algorithm in DPT-1 was described previously (2,3). The presence of ICAs was required for entry into both trials. If the first-phase insulin response (FPIR) of an IVGTT was below a defined threshold and/or an OGTT was abnormal, individuals were estimated to be at >50% 5-year risk and eligible for the parenteral insulin trial. If neither criterion was present, but insulin autoantibodies were positive, the estimated 5-year risk was 26–50% and individuals were eligible for the oral insulin trial.

DPT-1 participants were tested for ICAs at screening. Samples were also obtained for the subsequent testing of biochemical autoantibodies. ICA-positive individuals underwent IVGTTs followed by OGTTs. Median intervals from the initial screen, the IVGTT, and the OGTT to randomization were 1.18, 0.17, and 0.04 years, respectively. The parenteral insulin trial intervention included twice-daily injections of 0.125 units/kg of recombinant human ultralente insulin (Humulin U; Eli Lilly) with adjustments for weight and hypoglycemia, along with yearly 4-day intravenous insulin infusions at 0.015 units · kg^–1 · h^–1 with adjustments for glucose. The oral insulin trial intervention included recombinant human insulin crystals at a dose of 7.5 mg/day. OGTTs were performed at 6-month (±3 months) intervals after randomization in both trials. The oral glucose dose was 1.75 g/kg (75-g maximum). Plasma glucose and C-peptide measurements were obtained after fasting and at 30, 60, 90, and 120 min. Most individuals were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at routine visits. If glucose values were in the diabetes range (fasting glucose 126 mg/dl and/or 2-h glucose 200 mg/dl), a confirmation visit was arranged. If glucose values were not confirmed, participants continued to be followed at 6-month intervals.

Laboratory measures
Methodologies for assessing autoantibody positivity have been described (5). ICAs were determined by indirect immunofluorescence; titers 10 JDF units were considered positive. Glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD65) and ICA512 autoantibodies were measured simultaneously by a combined radioassay. Microinsulin autoantibodies (mIAA) were also measured by radioassay.

Plasma glucose levels were measured by the glucose oxidase method. Insulin and C-peptide levels were measured by radioimmunoassay. Interassay coefficients of variation for the insulin assay were 4.5% in the high reference pool and 6.9% in the low reference pool. Those for the C-peptide assay were 6.9 and 7.8% for the relatively high and low reference pools, respectively.

The FPIR was defined as the sum of insulin levels at the first and third minutes of the IVGTT. An FPIR less than the 10th percentile according to age norms was considered below threshold and was utilized for trial eligibility, except for parents, for whom a cutoff of less than the 1st percentile was used. An FPIR less than the 10th percentile according to age norms (FPIR less than the 10th percentile) was utilized for these analyses. C-peptide values in the undetectable range (<0.2 ng/ml) were assigned a value of 0.1 ng/ml. Fasting glucose measurements were obtained at –10 min and at time 0; the latter were utilized for the analyses, except for three individuals with missing values at time 0. Initial heights and weights were considered as baseline. The homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was defined as fasting glucose (mmol/l) x fasting insulin (mU/l)/22.5 (6,7). For simplicity, the total glucose and total C-peptide, defined as the totals of OGTT postchallenge glucose and C-peptide values (computed for each as the 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-min sum), were utilized; they correlated very well with the respective areas (trapezoidal rule) under the curve (r = 0.99 for both).

Data analysis
The t test and ² test were utilized for simple comparisons, and the log-rank test was used to compare the distributions of event times between groups. Linear regression and Pearson correlations were used to describe linear relations among variables. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to examine covariate effects on the type 1 diabetes risk over time from randomization. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the survival function was used to obtain an estimate of the cumulative incidence of type 1 diabetes over time. These results were used to estimate the 5-year type 1 diabetes risk for each participant using the methods described in the APPENDIX. Prediction accuracy was assessed by computation of the cumulative incidence within subgroups defined according to the estimated 5-year risk. The accuracy of prediction was also assessed with receiver operator curves.

A split-sample cross-validation procedure was utilized to develop and assess a risk score. A randomly selected development sample of half the participants was used for risk score development. The other half of the participants constituted the validation sample. Risk scores from the development sample were formulated according to coefficients of variables remaining from forward stepwise proportional hazards modeling. A univariate P value <0.05 was required for entry into stepwise modeling, and a P value <0.05 was required for final selection into the model. SAS version 9.1.3 was used for the analyses. All P values are two sided.

	RESULTS—

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS-- CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
The mean ± SD age and BMI for the 670 participants (56% male) were 13.8 ± 9.6 years (range 3.0–46.0) and 19.8 ± 5.0 kg/m² (12.5–52.1), respectively. On average, type 1 diabetes occurred after 2.5 ± 1.5 years of follow-up (n = 241). Those who did not develop type 1 diabetes were followed for 3.6 ± 1.7 years (n = 429).

By a random process, the full cohort was divided equally into development and validation samples (n = 335 for both). There were no significant differences between the two samples with regard to age, BMI, sex, or the occurrence of type 1 diabetes (37% in the development sample and 35% in the validation sample). As shown in Table 1, there were also no significant differences for any of the metabolic or autoantibody variables examined.

To obtain a risk score from the development cohort, forward stepwise modeling was performed in which all variables with univariate P values <0.05 (and n = 335) were included. Type 1 diabetes remained significantly associated with the total glucose (P < 0.001), total C-peptide (P < 0.001) and log–fasting C-peptide (now positively associated at P = 0.039), FPIR less than the 10th percentile (P = 0.021), log-BMI (now positively associated at P < 0.001), and age (P < 0.001). When each of the autoantibody variables was added back to the model, none were significantly associated with type 1 diabetes. (The backward elimination procedure yielded the same subset of predictors.)

Risk scores were determined from a model that included all variables remaining from the stepwise regression and a model that excluded FPIR less than the 10th percentile (Table 2). The performance of each risk score was examined in the validation sample cohort. The degree of association of type 1 diabetes with the risk scores was almost the same (proportional hazards model ² = 83.3 with and 82.3 without the inclusion of FPIR less than the 10th percentile, both P < 0.001 on 1 d.f.). The area under the receiver operator curve for the risk score with FPIR less than the 10th percentile excluded was almost identical to that for the risk score with it included (0.81 for both, P < 0.001). In the subsequent analyses shown, only the model without FPIR less than the 10th percentile is utilized.

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1— Cumulative incidence curves in the validation sample (n = 335) according to estimated 5-year type 1 diabetes risk categories (25% intervals) from the development sample risk score. The curves were progressively steeper as the predicted risk category increased (log rank: P < 0.001).

Prediction by the type 1 diabetes risk score was assessed separately in the parenteral and oral insulin trial cohorts. Although these cohorts differed in that the parenteral trial cohort had a much higher occurrence rate (47 vs. 27%; hazard ratio 2.06 [95% confidence limit 1.59–2.67], P < 0.001), the type 1 diabetes risk score was strongly predictive of type 1 diabetes in each cohort (proportional hazards model ² for the parenteral and oral trial cohorts were 119.2 and 55.8, respectively) (both P < 0.001 on 1 d.f.).

We assessed whether a change in the risk score was in itself predictive of type 1 diabetes. There was an overall increase (0.16 ± 0.92, P < 0.001, n = 490) in the type 1 diabetes risk score from baseline to the 1-year visit that was greater (0.37 ± 1.20 vs. 0.07 ± 0.78, P = 0.004) in those who developed type 1 diabetes (n = 157) than in those who remained nondiabetic (n = 333). In proportional hazards regression, change in the type 1 diabetes risk score from baseline to the 1-year visit (adjusted for the baseline risk score) was highly predictive of type 1 diabetes (² = 62.9, P < 0.001). The impact of change in the type 1 diabetes risk score is evident among participants in the 50–74% 5-year risk category at baseline who were seen at the 1-year visit. Type 1 diabetes occurred more frequently in those progressing to the 75% 5-year risk category at the 1-year visit than in those remaining in the 50–74% risk category (28 of 40 vs. 17 of 41, P = 0.002).

	CONCLUSIONS—

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS-- CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
The comprehensive baseline data from DPT-1 has provided the opportunity to develop and validate a risk score for type 1 diabetes among relatives with autoimmune pre-diabetes. Using a split-sample validation procedure, a model was fit in a development sample and its performance was examined in a validation sample. The development sample risk score was highly predictive of type 1 diabetes in the validation sample.

The change in the type 1 diabetes risk score from baseline to the 1-year visit was also highly predictive of type 1 diabetes. This finding further verifies the type 1 diabetes risk score and suggests that it can be used to monitor type 1 diabetes progression. With such monitoring, individuals initially deemed ineligible for prevention studies could subsequently be enrolled. Also, monitoring with a risk score could have clinical utility as interventions for pre-diabetes become available. The increase in the risk score from baseline to the 1-year visit in those who subsequently developed type 1 diabetes is consistent with DPT-1 findings (8) of a gradual progression to type 1 diabetes.

The type 1 diabetes risk score was strongly predictive of type 1 diabetes in both the parenteral and oral insulin trial cohorts, despite substantially different type 1 diabetes occurrence rates. Although these findings should not be viewed as part of the validation procedure, they suggest that the type 1 diabetes risk score could have applicability over a range of risk levels and occurrence rates.

Since the findings are contingent upon the presence of ICAs in a selected cohort, one cannot say to what extent the type 1 diabetes risk score and its derived risk estimates apply to relatives identified through autoantibodies other than ICAs or to ICA-negative relatives. Also, other selection criteria for the DPT-1 trials besides ICAs could affect the type 1 diabetes risk score's applicability. Moreover, if methodologies for glucose and C-peptide measurements differ from those utilized in DPT-1, the risk estimates derived from the type 1 diabetes risk score might not be fully applicable. Finally, the type 1 diabetes risk score is not a definitive disease indicator; rather, it provides a probability.

The biochemical autoantibodies added little to the strength of the type 1 diabetes risk score model. Those autoantibodies are known predictors of type 1 diabetes (9–12). However, it is possible that once autoantibody positivity is established and other information is available, the presence or absence of other autoantibodies adds relatively little to prediction.

Even though FPIR less than the 10th percentile was predictive of type 1 diabetes, it contributed little additional prediction accuracy when it was included in the risk score model. This was evident in the similar ² values for the risk scores and their almost identical areas under the receiver operator curves with and without FPIR less than the 10th percentile included as a variable in the risk score model. Thus, IVGTTs may not contribute much prediction information beyond that of OGTTs.

Risk factors for type 1 diabetes have been examined, but little information is available regarding risk scores for type 1 diabetes. A prognostic risk index was developed in a recent study (11). In a subcohort that was followed in that study, HOMA-IR/FPIR was predictive of type 1 diabetes. This finding is consistent with that of an earlier study (10) and another study from DPT-1 (13). Although type 1 diabetes was related to HOMA-IR/FPIR in the present study, it was not among the variables retained for the risk score model.

Type 1 diabetes occurrence has been found to be associated with autoantibodies (9–17), FPIR (10–13,16,18), glucose intolerance (19,20), and an elevated proinsulin–to–C-peptide ratio (17). In addition, we have recently shown that glucose and C-peptide data from OGTTs can be strongly predictive (4), even in relatives with normal glucose tolerance. BMI has been reported to be predictive of type 1 diabetes in DPT-1 (18). Also, indirect evidence suggests an association between type 1 diabetes occurrence and BMI (21,22).

Since the analyses were performed solely for developing a predictive model, associations in the multivariate analyses should be interpreted cautiously. Certain variables that added relatively little to prediction, such as biochemical autoantibodies and IVGTT indexes, are certainly still important for understanding the development of type 1 diabetes.

DPT-1 used a two-stage approach for assessing risk in relatives of type 1 diabetic patients. The first stage identified autoantibody-positive relatives through screening, whereas the second stage further characterized risk according to the presence of abnormal glucose tolerance and IVGTT abnormalities. It appears that for future prevention trials, a first stage that includes autoantibody testing should be maintained. However, with the judicious selection of available information and with more quantitative methodology, risk characterization in the second stage can now be accomplished more efficiently and accurately.

In conclusion, a risk score that utilizes age and adiposity together with measures of oral glucose tolerance and β-cell function from OGTTs appears to accurately quantify the risk of developing type 1 diabetes among relatives with autoimmunity as characterized by ICA positivity.

	APPENDIX

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS-- CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 
Calculation of 5-year risk from a proportional hazards model
Methodology regarding the calculation can be found in ref. 23. The Cox proportional hazards model expresses the hazard function and corresponding survival probability for a subject with a covariate vector x as a linear function of a set of regression coefficients β using the linear predictor x' β. Let designate the mean of the covariates in the sample and let (t) designate the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the survival function in the complete cohort as of time t. Then, from the proportional hazards model, this implies that the survival function from an individual with covariate vector x is obtained as the following:

The corresponding t-year risk of the event is then obtained as 1 – S(t/x).

From the final model based on all DPT-1 subjects, the type 1 diabetes risk score (linear predictor x' β) was calculated according to the following formula:

This type 1 diabetes risk score is then converted to the estimated 5-year risk according to the following formula:

	Acknowledgments

 
Supplies were provided by Eli Lilly, Bayer, Becton Dickinson, International Technidyne, LifeScan, the Mead Johnson Nutritionals Division of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Medisense Division of Abbott Laboratories, MiniMed, and Roche Diagnostics.

This study was sponsored by cooperative agreements with the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; the National Center for Research Resources; the American Diabetes Association; and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

	Footnotes

 
Published ahead of print at http://care.diabetesjournals.org on 7 November 2007: 10.2337/dc07-1459.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

See accompanying editorial, p. 622.

Received for publication July 27, 2007. Accepted for publication November 1, 2007.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-- RESULTS-- CONCLUSIONS-- APPENDIX References

 

1. Gale EA, Bingley PJ, Emmett CL, Collier T, the European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial (ENDIT) Group: European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial (ENDIT): a randomised controlled trial of intervention before the onset of type 1. Lancet 363:925–931, 2004[Medline]
   
2. Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 Diabetes Study Group: Effects of insulin in relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 346:1685–1691, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
3. Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 Diabetes Study Group: Effects of oral insulin in relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 28:1068–1076, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
4. Sosenko J, Palmer JP, Greenbaum CJ, Mahon J, Cowie C, Krischer JP, Chase HP, White NH, Buckingham B, Herold KC, Cuthbertson D, Skyler JS, the Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 Study Group: Increasing the accuracy of oral glucose tolerance testing and extending its application to individuals with normal glucose tolerance for the prediction of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 30:38–42, 2007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
5. Yu L, Cuthbertson DD, Eisenbarth GS, Krischer JP: Prevalence of GAD and ICA512 (IA-2) autoantibodies by relationship to proband. Ann N Y Acad Sci 958:254–258, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, Naylor BA, Treacher DF, Turner RL: Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and β-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 28:412–419, 1985[Medline]
   
7. Haffner SM, Miettinen H, Stern MP: The homeostasis model in the San Antonio Heart Study. Diabetes Care 20:1087–1092, 1997[Abstract]
   
8. Sosenko J, Palmer JP, Greenbaum CJ, Mahon J, Cowie C, Krischer JP, Chase HP, White NH, Buckingham B, Herold KC, Cuthbertson D, Skyler JS: Patterns of metabolic progression to type 1 diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1. Diabetes Care 29:643–649, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
9. Verge CF, Gianani R, Kawasaki E, Yu L, Pietropaolo M, Jackson RA, Chase HP, Eisenbarth GS: Prediction of type 1 diabetes in first-degree relatives using a combination of insulin, GAD, and ICA512bdc/IA-2 autoantibodies. Diabetes 45:926–933, 1996[Medline]
   
10. Fourlanos S, Narendran P, Byrnes GB, Colman PG, Harrison LC: Insulin resistance is a risk factor for progression of type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 47:1661–1667, 2004[Medline]
    
11. Mrena S, Virtanen SM, Laippala P, Kulmala P, Hannila ML, Åkerblom HK, Knip M: Models for predicting type 1 diabetes in siblings of affected children. Diabetes Care 29:662–667, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
12. Bingley PJ, Gale EAM, the European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial (ENDIT) Group: Progression to type 1 diabetes in islet cell antibody-positive relatives in the European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial: the role of additional immune, genetic and metabolic markers of risk. Diabetologia 49:881–890, 2006[Medline]
    
13. Xu P, Cuthbertson D, Greenbaum C, Palmer JP, Krischer JP, the Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 Study Group: Role of insulin resistance in predicting progression to type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 30:2314–2320, 2007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
14. Riley WJ, Krischer J, Spillar RP, Silverstein JH, Schatz DA, Schwartz S, Malone J, Shah S, Vadheim C, Rotter JI: A prospective study of the development of diabetes in relatives of patients with insulin-dependent diabetes. N Engl J Med 323:1167–1172, 1990[Abstract]
    
15. Bonifacio E, Bingley PJ, Shattock M, Dean BM, Dunger D, Gale EA, Bottazzo GF: Quantification of islet-cell antibodies and prediction of insulin-dependent diabetes. Lancet 335:147–149, 1990[Medline]
    
16. Greenbaum CJ, Sears KL, Kahn SE, Palmer JP: Relationship of β-cell function and autoantibodies to progression and nonprogression of subclinical type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 48:170–175, 1999[Medline]
    
17. Truyen I, De Grijse J, Weets I, Kaufman L, Pipeleers L, Nanos N, Decochez K, Hilbrands R, Kaufman JM, Keymeulen B, Mathieu C, Van Gaal L, Pipleers DG, Gorus FK, the Belgian Diabetes Registry: Identification of prediabetes in first-degree relatives at intermediate risk of type 1 diabetes. Clin Exp Immunol 149:243–250, 2007[Medline]
    
18. Barker JM, McFann K, Harrison LC, Fourlanos S, Krischer J, Cuthbertson D, Chase HP, Eisenbarth GS, the DPT-1 Study Group: Pre-type 1 diabetes dysmetabolism: maximal sensitivity achieved with both oral and intravenous glucose tolerance testing. J Pediatr 150:31–36, 2007[Medline]
    
19. Rosenbloom AL, Hunt SS, Rosenbloom EK, Maclaren NK: Ten-year prognosis of impaired glucose tolerance in siblings of patients with insulin-dependent diabetes. Diabetes 31:385–387, 1982[Medline]
    
20. Beer SF, Heaton DA, Alberti KGMM, Pyke A, Leslie RDG: Impaired glucose tolerance precedes but does not predict insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a study of identical twins. Diabetologia 33:497–502, 1990[Medline]
    
21. Kibirige M, Metcalf B, Renuka, Wilkin TJ: Testing the accelerator hypothesis. Diabetes Care 26:2865–2870, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
22. Betts P, Mulligan J, Ward P, Smith B, Wilkin T: Increasing body weight predicts the earlier onset of insulin-dependent diabetes in childhood: testing the ‘accelerator hypothesis’ (2). Diabet Med 22:144–151, 2005[Medline]
    
23. Lachin JM: Biostatistical Methods: The Assessment of Relative Risks. New York, Wiley, 2000
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Knip Should We Screen for Risk of Type 1 Diabetes? Diabetes Care, March 1, 2008; 31(3): 622 - 623. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: dc07-1459v1 dc07-1459v2 31/3/528    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Sosenko, J. M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sosenko, J. M. Related Collections Related Article Social Bookmarking                What's this?