Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The 3 Screen ICA ELISA is a novel assay capable of simultaneously measuring autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA), insulinoma-associated antigen-2 (IA-2A), and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8A), making it a valuable tool for screening type 1 diabetes. Despite its advantages, it cannot specify which individual autoantibodies are positive or negative. This study aimed to estimate individual positive autoantibodies based on the 3 Screen ICA titer. Six hundred seventeen patients with type 1 diabetes, simultaneously measured for 3 Screen ICA and three individual autoantibodies, were divided into five groups based on their 3 Screen ICA titer. The sensitivities and contribution rates of the individual autoantibodies were then examined. The study had a cross-sectional design. Sixty-nine percent (424 of 617) of patients with type 1 diabetes had 3 Screen ICA titers exceeding the 99th percentile cut-off level (20 index). The prevalence of GADA ranged from 80% to 100% in patients with a 3 Screen ICA over 30 index and 97% of patients with a 3 Screen ICA ≥300 index. Furthermore, the prevalence of all individual autoantibodies being positive was 0% for ≤80 index and as high as 92% for ≥300 index. Significant associations were observed in specific titer groups: the 20–29.9 index group when all the individual autoantibodies were negative, the 30–79.9 index group when positive for GADA alone or IA-2A alone, the 30–299.9 index group when positive for ZnT8A alone, the 80–299.9 index group when positive for both IA-2A and ZnT8A, the 300–499.9 index group when positive for both GADA and ZnT8A, and the ≥300 index group when positive for all individual autoantibodies. These results suggest that the 3 Screen ICA titer may be helpful in estimating individual positive autoantibodies.
The 3 Screen ICA ELISA is a novel assay capable of simultaneously measuring autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA), insulinoma-associated antigen-2 (IA-2A), and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8A), making it a valuable tool for screening type 1 diabetes. Despite its advantages, it cannot specify which individual autoantibodies are positive or negative. This study aimed to estimate individual positive autoantibodies based on the 3 Screen ICA titer. Six hundred seventeen patients with type 1 diabetes, simultaneously measured for 3 Screen ICA and three individual autoantibodies, were divided into five groups based on their 3 Screen ICA titer. The sensitivities and contribution rates of the individual autoantibodies were then examined. The study had a cross-sectional design. Sixty-nine percent (424 of 617) of patients with type 1 diabetes had 3 Screen ICA titers exceeding the 99th percentile cut-off level (20 index). The prevalence of GADA ranged from 80% to 100% in patients with a 3 Screen ICA over 30 index and 97% of patients with a 3 Screen ICA ≥300 index. Furthermore, the prevalence of all individual autoantibodies being positive was 0% for ≤80 index and as high as 92% for ≥300 index. Significant associations were observed in specific titer groups: the 20–29.9 index group when all the individual autoantibodies were negative, the 30–79.9 index group when positive for GADA alone or IA-2A alone, the 30–299.9 index group when positive for ZnT8A alone, the 80–299.9 index group when positive for both IA-2A and ZnT8A, the 300–499.9 index group when positive for both GADA and ZnT8A, and the ≥300 index group when positive for all individual autoantibodies. These results suggest that the 3 Screen ICA titer may be helpful in estimating individual positive autoantibodies.
We conducted a fundamental evaluation of the 3 Screen ICA ELISA kit, which can simultaneously measure three major anti-islet autoantibodies important in diagnosing and predicting type 1 diabetes, to assess its usefulness as a measuring reagent. In autoantibody-positive samples, the coefficient of variation for intra-assay variation ranged from 1.37% to 2.50%, inter-assay variation from 2.81% to 3.61%, and lot-to-lot variation from 2.01% to 8.61%, demonstrating good reproducibility. Additionally, interfering substances did not affect the autoantibody titers, and satisfying performance was observed in tests examining the sample freeze-thaw stability. Notably, even when the titer of GAD autoantibodies was below the cut-off value of the GAD autoantibody ELISA, the 3 Screen ICA signal was completely absorbed by recombinant GAD65 protein, indicating that the detection sensitivity for GAD autoantibody in the 3 Screen ICA ELISA is higher than that of the GAD autoantibody ELISA kit. Furthermore, in a study using IASP2020 samples from the Immunology and Diabetes Society, which aims to standardize anti-islet autoantibody assays, this kit achieved excellent results with a sensitivity of 96.0%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 98.57%. Measuring multiple anti-islet autoantibodies in combination is crucial for diagnosing and predicting type 1 diabetes. The ELISA kit used in this study is highly versatile and can be used in any measurement facility, making it extremely useful for routine testing.
BACKGROUND In recent years, the emergence of multiplex technology that can simultaneously measure multiple anti-islet autoantibodies has become particularly valuable for the staging and early diagnosis of immune-mediated type 1 diabetes (T1D). While it has been established that 20%-30% of T1D patients suffer from autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD), there is limited available data regarding the presence of anti-islet autoantibodies in AITD patients. Among commercially available anti-islet autoantibodies, glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 autoantibodies (GADAs) are often the first marker measured in general clinical practice. AIM To investigate the frequency of anti-islet autoantibodies in AITD patients. METHODS Our study involved four hundred ninety-five AITD patients, categorized into three distinct groups: AITD with T1D (n = 18), AITD with phenotypic type 2 diabetes (T2D) (n = 81), and AITD without diabetes (n = 396), and the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was employed to determine the frequencies of 3 Screen Islet Cell Autoantibody (3 Screen ICA), GADA, insulinoma-associated antigen-2 autoantibodies (IA-2As), and zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies (ZnT8As) within these groups. RESULTS The frequency of 3 Screen ICA in AITD patients with T1D, T2D, and those without diabetes were 88.9%, 6.2%, and 5.1%, respectively, with no significant difference seen between the latter two groups. Notably, the frequency of 3 Screen ICA was 11.1% higher in AITD patients with T1D, 1.3% higher in AITD patients with T2D, and 1.1% higher in AITD patients without diabetes compared to GADA, respectively. Furthermore, 12.5%, 20.0%, and 20.0% of the 3 Screen ICA-positive patients were negative for GADA. Additionally, 1.3% of the AITD patients who tested negative for 3 Screen ICA in both the AITD with T2D and non-diabetic AITD groups were found to be positive for individual autoantibodies. Among the 3 Screen ICA-positive patients, there was a significantly higher proportion of individuals with multiple autoantibodies in AITD patients with T1D compared to those without diabetes (37.5% vs 5.0%, P < 0.05). However, this proportion was similar to that in AITD patients with T2D (20.0%). Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in 3 Screen ICA titers between AITD patients with T1D and those without diabetes (436.8 ± 66.4 vs 308.1 ± 66.4 index). Additionally, no significant difference in 3 Screen ICA titers was observed between Graves’ disease and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis in any of the groups. CONCLUSION Our findings reveal that some AITD patients without diabetes exhibit 3 Screen ICA titers comparable to those in AITD patients with T1D. Thus, 3 Screen ICA outperforms GADA in identifying latent anti-islet autoantibody-positive individuals among AITD patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.