Advertisement

Diabetologia

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 33–40 | Cite as

Beta cell function in type 1 diabetes determined from clinical and fasting biochemical variables

  • John M. Wentworth
  • Naiara G. Bediaga
  • Lynne C. Giles
  • Mario Ehlers
  • Stephen E. Gitelman
  • Susan Geyer
  • Carmella Evans-Molina
  • Leonard C. Harrison
  • the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group
  • the Immune Tolerance Network Study Group
Article

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis

Beta cell function in type 1 diabetes is commonly assessed as the average plasma C-peptide concentration over 2 h following a mixed-meal test (CPAVE). Monitoring of disease progression and response to disease-modifying therapy would benefit from a simpler, more convenient and less costly measure. Therefore, we determined whether CPAVE could be reliably estimated from routine clinical variables.

Methods

Clinical and fasting biochemical data from eight randomised therapy trials involving participants with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes were used to develop and validate linear models to estimate CPAVE and to test their accuracy in estimating loss of beta cell function and response to immune therapy.

Results

A model based on disease duration, BMI, insulin dose, HbA1c, fasting plasma C-peptide and fasting plasma glucose most accurately estimated loss of beta cell function (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.89 [95% CI 0.87, 0.92]) and was superior to the commonly used insulin-dose-adjusted HbA1c (IDAA1c) measure (AUROC 0.72 [95% CI 0.68, 0.76]). Model-estimated CPAVE (CPEST) reliably identified treatment effects in randomised trials. CPEST, compared with CPAVE, required only a modest (up to 17%) increase in sample size for equivalent statistical power.

Conclusions/interpretation

CPEST, approximated from six variables at a single time point, accurately identifies loss of beta cell function in type 1 diabetes and is comparable to CPAVE for identifying treatment effects. CPEST could serve as a convenient and economical measure of beta cell function in the clinic and as a primary outcome measure in trials of disease-modifying therapy in type 1 diabetes.

Keywords

Adult Beta cell function Children Clinical trial Immune therapy Immune Tolerance Network Linear model TrialNet Type 1 diabetes 

Abbreviations

AIC

Akaike’s information criterion

AUROC

Area under the ROC curve

CPAVE

Average plasma C-peptide concentration over 2 h following a mixed-meal test

CPEST

Estimated CPAVE

FCP

Fasting C-peptide

FPG

Fasting plasma glucose

IDAA1c

Insulin-dose-adjusted HbA1c

ITN

Immune Tolerance Network

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the trial participants and to M. Ritchie (Molecular Medicine Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Australia) and A. Gorelik (Epicentre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia) for statistical advice. We also thank the ITN and TrialNet investigators who contributed to original data, listed in the ESM.

Contribution statement

JMW devised the study. JMW, NGB, LCG and LCH analysed the data and prepared the manuscript. All named authors contributed to collection, collation, analysis and interpretation of the data, helped to revise the manuscript and approved it for publication. Authors listed in the ESM contributed by performing the TrialNet and ITN clinical trials. JMW is the guarantor and takes full responsibility for the work as a whole, including the study design, access to data and the decision to submit and publish the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by JDRF Australia (Clinical Practitioner Fellowship to JMW) and JDRF (Strategic Research Agreement to CE-M) and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (Program Grant 1037321 to LCH and CRE 1078106 Fellowship to JMW). LCH is a Senior Principal Research Fellow of the NHMRC. This work was made possible through Victorian State Government Operational Infrastructure Support and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Research Institute Infrastructure Support Scheme. This manuscript includes clinical and biochemical data provided by the TrialNet data repository from clinical trials TN-02, TN-05, TN-08, TN-09 and TN-14. TrialNet is currently funded by NIH grants 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, UC4 DK106993, and the JDRF. Research reported in this publication was also performed as a project of the Immune Tolerance Network and was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UM1AI109565. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication.

Duality of interest

SEG received funding from the Immune Tolerance Network (in turn funded by NIAID) for his role as principal investigator of the START trial (ITN-28). SG received a grant from NIDDK for unrelated work. All other authors declare that there is no duality of interest associated with their contribution to this manuscript.

Supplementary material

125_2018_4722_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (141 kb)
ESM (PDF 140 kb)
125_2018_4722_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (17 kb)
ESM (XLSX 17 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Skyler JS (2013) Primary and secondary prevention of type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 30:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenbaum CJ, Mandrup-Poulsen T, McGee PF et al (2008) Mixed-meal tolerance test versus glucagon stimulation test for the assessment of β-cell function in therapeutic trials in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 31:1966–1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orban T, Bundy B, Becker DJ et al (2011) Co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 378:412–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pescovitz MD, Greenbaum CJ, Krause-Steinrauf H et al (2009) Rituximab, B-lymphocyte depletion, and preservation of beta-cell function. N Engl J Med 361:2143–2152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sherry N, Hagopian W, Ludvigsson J et al (2011) Teplizumab for treatment of type 1 diabetes (Protege study): 1-year results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 378:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mortensen HB, Hougaard P, Swift P et al (2009) New definition for the partial remission period in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32:1384–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Max Andersen ML, Hougaard P, Porksen S et al (2014) Partial remission definition: validation based on the insulin dose-adjusted HbA1c (IDAA1C) in 129 Danish children with new-onset type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 15:469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sosenko JM, Krischer JP, Palmer JP et al (2008) A risk score for type 1 diabetes derived from autoantibody-positive participants in the diabetes prevention trial-type 1. Diabetes Care 31:528–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sosenko JM, Skyler JS, Palmer JP et al (2013) The prediction of type 1 diabetes by multiple autoantibody levels and their incorporation into an autoantibody risk score in relatives of type 1 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 36:2615–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sosenko JM, Geyer S, Skyler JS et al (2017) The influence of body mass index and age on C-peptide at the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children who participated in the diabetes prevention trial-type 1. Pediatr Diabetes 19:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gottlieb PA, Quinlan S, Krause-Steinrauf H et al (2010) Failure to preserve β-cell function with mycophenolate mofetil and daclizumab combined therapy in patients with new- onset type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 33:826–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wherrett DK, Bundy B, Becker DJ et al (2011) Antigen-based therapy with glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) vaccine in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 378:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moran A, Bundy B, Becker DJ et al (2013) Interleukin-1 antagonism in type 1 diabetes of recent onset: two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 381:1905–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gitelman SE, Gottlieb PA, Rigby MR et al (2013) Antithymocyte globulin treatment for patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: 12-month results of a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 1:306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herold KC, Gitelman SE, Ehlers MR et al (2013) Teplizumab (anti-CD3 mAb) treatment preserves C-peptide responses in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial: metabolic and immunologic features at baseline identify a subgroup of responders. Diabetes 62:3766–3774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rigby MR, DiMeglio LA, Rendell MS et al (2013) Targeting of memory T cells with alefacept in new-onset type 1 diabetes (T1DAL study): 12 month results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 1:284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pickup JC (2012) Insulin-pump therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 366:1616–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bundy BN, Krischer JP, Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group (2016) A model-based approach to sample size estimation in recent onset type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 32:827–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beck RW, Tamborlane WV, Bergenstal RM et al (2012) The T1D Exchange clinic registry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97:4383–4389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greenbaum CJ, Beam CA, Boulware D et al (2012) Fall in C-peptide during first 2 years from diagnosis: evidence of at least two distinct phases from composite Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet data. Diabetes 61:2066–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hao W, Gitelman S, DiMeglio LA, Boulware D, Greenbaum CJ, Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group (2016) Fall in C-peptide during first 4 years from diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: variable relation to age, HbA1c, and insulin dose. Diabetes Care 39:1664–1670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wherrett DK, Chiang JL, Delamater AM et al (2015) Defining pathways for development of disease-modifying therapies in children with type 1 diabetes: a consensus report. Diabetes Care 38:1975–1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herold KC, Gitelman SE, Masharani U et al (2005) A single course of anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody hOKT3gamma1(Ala-Ala) results in improvement in C-peptide responses and clinical parameters for at least 2 years after onset of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 54:1763–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barker A, Lauria A, Schloot N et al (2014) Age-dependent decline of β-cell function in type 1 diabetes after diagnosis: a multi-centre longitudinal study. Diabetes Obes Metab 16:262–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moberg E, Kollind M, Lins PE, Adamson U (1995) Day-to-day variation of insulin sensitivity in patients with type 1 diabetes: role of gender and menstrual cycle. Diabet Med 12:224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bergman RN, Phillips LS, Cobelli C (1981) Physiologic evaluation of factors controlling glucose tolerance in man: measurement of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell glucose sensitivity from the response to intravenous glucose. J Clin Invest 68:1456–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Wentworth
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Naiara G. Bediaga
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lynne C. Giles
    • 4
  • Mario Ehlers
    • 5
    • 6
  • Stephen E. Gitelman
    • 7
  • Susan Geyer
    • 8
  • Carmella Evans-Molina
    • 9
  • Leonard C. Harrison
    • 1
    • 2
  • the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group
  • the Immune Tolerance Network Study Group
  1. 1.The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical ResearchParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Medical BiologyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Diabetes and EndocrinologyRoyal Melbourne Hospital, University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.School of Public HealthThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.Clinical Trials GroupImmune Tolerance NetworkSan FranciscoUSA
  6. 6.Eli Lilly and CompanySan DiegoUSA
  7. 7.University of California at San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  8. 8.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  9. 9.Indiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations