ArticleDiabetes technology & therapeutics2018
Can Biomarkers Help Target Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young Genetic Testing in Antibody-Negative Diabetes?
Article in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Point-of-Care Test for Determination of C-Peptide Levels.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Congenital nephrotic syndrome in a Hispanic Guatemalan newborn associated with aBiomedical reports · 2022Article
- Update on clinical screening of maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY).Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2020Review
- A decision algorithm to identify patients with high probability of monogenic diabetes due to HNF1A mutations.Endocrine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) is an antibody-negative, autosomal dominant form of diabetes. With the increasing prevalence of diabetes and the expense of MODY testing, markers to identify those who need further genetic testing would be beneficial. We investigated whether HLA genotypes, random C-peptide, and/or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels could be helpful biomarkers for identifying MODY in antibody-negative diabetes.
methodsSubjects (N = 97) with diabetes onset ≤age 25, measurable C-peptide (≥0.1 ng/mL), and negative for all four diabetes autoantibodies were enrolled at a large academic center and tested for MODY 1-5 through Athena Diagnostics. A total of 22 subjects had a positive or very likely pathogenic mutation for MODY.
resultsRandom C-peptide levels were significantly different between MODY-positive and MODY-negative subjects (0.16 nmol/L vs. 0.02 nmol/L; P = 0.02). After adjusting for age and diabetes duration, hsCRP levels were significantly lower in MODY-positive subjects (0.37 mg/L vs. 0.87 mg/L; P = 0.02). Random C-peptide level ≥0.15 nmol/L obtained at ≥6 months after diagnosis had 83% sensitivity for diagnosis of MODY with a negative predictive value of 96%. Receiver operating characteristic curves showed that area under the curve for random C-peptide (0.75) was significantly better than hsCRP (0.54), high-risk HLA DR3/4-DQB1*0302 (0.59), and high-risk HLA/random C-peptide combined (0.54; P = 0.03).
conclusionsRandom C-peptide obtained at ≥6 months after diagnosis can be a useful biomarker to identify antibody-negative individuals who need further genetic testing for MODY, whereas hsCRP and HLA do not appear to improve this antibody/C-peptide-based approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.