The efficacy of islet autoantibody screening with or without genetic pre-screening strategies for the identification of presymptomatic type 1 diabetes
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
Grant support
G-2103-05036
Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
FZK 01KX1818
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
grant agreement No 101132379
Innovative Health Initiative
PubMed
40105972
PubMed Central
PMC12069122
DOI
10.1007/s00125-025-06408-4
PII: 10.1007/s00125-025-06408-4
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Autoantibodies * immunology MeSH
- Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 * diagnosis genetics immunology MeSH
- Genetic Testing * methods MeSH
- Islets of Langerhans * immunology MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Mass Screening methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Autoantibodies * MeSH
Early detection of type 1 diabetes, in its presymptomatic stage, offers significant clinical advantages, including treatment that can delay disease onset. Current screening focuses on identifying islet autoantibody positivity, with proposed optimal testing at ages 2, 6 and 10 years potentially achieving up to 80% sensitivity. However, challenges arise from participation rates and costs associated with multiple screenings. Genetic pre-screening has been suggested as a complementary strategy to target high-risk individuals prior to autoantibody testing, but its real-world benefits remain uncertain. Broad genetic selection strategies, based on family history, HLA typing or polygenic risk scores, can identify subsets of the population at elevated risk. However, these approaches face issues like low recall rates, socioeconomic biases and limited applicability across diverse ancestries. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness and infrastructure requirements of integrating genetic testing into routine healthcare remain significant hurdles. The combined use of genetic and autoantibody testing could improve predictive value, especially with innovations like point-of-care genetic testing. Yet, the ultimate success of any screening programme depends less on specific strategies and more on maximising public and healthcare-provider engagement, ensuring high participation, and addressing socioeconomic and demographic disparities. Digital-health infrastructure may play a crucial role in improving recall rates and maintaining follow-up adherence. In conclusion, while repeated islet autoantibody screening remains the most effective standalone approach, conducting genetic screening prior to islet autoantibody testing may be practical in certain contexts, provided that sufficient resources and equitable strategies are employed. Public engagement and robust infrastructure are essential to realising the full potential of early type 1 diabetes detection programmes.
Center for Regenerative Therapies Dresden Faculty of Medicine TU Dresden Dresden Germany
Clinical and Translational Research Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen Herlev Denmark
Department of Immunology and Immunotherapy University of Birmingham Birmingham UK
Department of Paediatric Diabetology and Paediatrics Medical University of Warsaw Warsaw Poland
Department of Paediatrics University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden Germany
Diabetes Research Institute IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele Milan Italy
Institute of Diabetes Research Helmholtz Munich Munich Germany
Pediatric Department APDP Diabetes Portugal Education and Research Center Lisboa Portugal
See more in PubMed
Herold KC, Bundy BN, Long SA et al (2019) An anti-CD3 antibody, teplizumab, in relatives at risk for type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 381:603–613. 10.1056/NEJMoa1902226 PubMed PMC
Bonifacio E, Winkler C, Achenbach P, Ziegler AG (2024) Effect of population-wide screening for presymptomatic early-stage type 1 diabetes on paediatric clinical care. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 12(6):376–378. 10.1016/S2213-8587(24)00101-3 PubMed
Hekkala AM, Ilonen J, Toppari J, Knip M, Veijola R (2018) Ketoacidosis at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: effect of prospective studies with newborn genetic screening and follow up of risk children. Pediatr Diabetes 19(2):314–319. 10.1111/pedi.12541 PubMed
Insel RA, Dunne JL, Atkinson MA et al (2015) Staging presymptomatic type 1 diabetes: a scientific statement of JDRF, the Endocrine Society, and the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 38:1964–1974. 10.2337/dc15-1419 PubMed PMC
Ziegler A-G, Kick K, Bonifacio E et al (2020) Yield of a public health screening of children for islet autoantibodies in Bavaria, Germany. JAMA 323:339–351. 10.1001/jama.2019.21565 PubMed PMC
Bosi E, Catassi C (2024) Screening type 1 diabetes and celiac disease by law. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 12(1):12–14. 10.1016/S2213-8587(23)00354-6 PubMed
Quinn LM, Dias RP, Greenfield SM et al (2024) Protocol for a feasibility and acceptability study for UK general population paediatric type 1 diabetes screening-the EarLy Surveillance for Autoimmune diabetes (ELSA) study. Diabet Med 00:e15490. 10.1111/dme.15490 PubMed PMC
Naredi Scherman M, Lind A, Hamdan S et al (2024) Home capillary sampling and screening for type 1 diabetes, celiac disease, and autoimmune thyroid disease in a Swedish general pediatric population: the TRIAD study. Front Pediatr 12:1386513. 10.3389/fped.2024.1386513 PubMed PMC
Bonifacio E, Weiß A, Winkler C et al (2021) An age-related exponential decline in the risk of multiple islet autoantibody seroconversion during childhood. Diabetes Care 44(10):2260–2268. 10.2337/dc20-2122 PubMed PMC
Ghalwash M, Dunne JL, Lundgren M et al (2022) Two-age islet-autoantibody screening for childhood type 1 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 10(8):589–596. 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00141-3 PubMed PMC
Ghalwash M, Anand V, Lou O et al (2023) Islet autoantibody screening in at-risk adolescents to predict type 1 diabetes until young adulthood: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 7(4):261–268. 10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00350-9 PubMed PMC
Sharp SA, Rich SS, Wood AR et al (2019) Development and standardization of an improved type 1 diabetes genetic risk score for use in newborn screening and incident diagnosis. Diabetes Care 42(2):200–207. 10.2337/dc18-1785 PubMed PMC
Hagopian WA, Erlich H, Lernmark A et al (2011) The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY): genetic criteria and international diabetes risk screening of 421 000 infants. Pediatr Diabetes 12(8):733–743. 10.1111/j.1399-5448.2011.00774.x PubMed PMC
Ferrat LA, Vehik K, Sharp SA et al (2020) A combined risk score enhances prediction of type 1 diabetes among susceptible children. Nat Med 26(8):1247–1255. 10.1038/s41591-020-0930-4 PubMed PMC
Winkler C, Haupt F, Heigermoser M et al (2019) Identification of infants with increased type 1 diabetes genetic risk for enrollment into Primary Prevention Trials-GPPAD-02 study design and first results. Pediatr Diabetes 20(6):720–727. 10.1111/pedi.12870 PubMed PMC
Baxter J, Vehik K, Johnson SB, Lernmark B, Roth R, Simell T (2012) Differences in recruitment and early retention among ethnic minority participants in a large pediatric cohort: the TEDDY Study. Contemp Clin Trials 33(4):633–640. 10.1016/j.cct.2012.03.009 PubMed PMC
Swartling U, Lynch K, Smith L, Johnson SB, TEDDY Study Group (2016) Parental estimation of their child’s increased type 1 diabetes risk during the first 2 years of participation in an international observational study: results from the TEDDY study. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 11(2):106–114. 10.1177/1556264616648589 PubMed PMC
Guertin KA, Repaske DR, Taylor JF et al (2024) Implementation of type 1 diabetes genetic risk screening in children in diverse communities: the Virginia PrIMeD project. Genome Med 16(1):31. 10.1186/s13073-024-01305-8 PubMed PMC
Karl FM, Winkler C, Ziegler AG, Laxy M, Achenbach P (2022) Costs of public health screening of children for presymptomatic type 1 diabetes in Bavaria, Germany. Diabetes Care 45(4):837–844. 10.2337/dc21-1648 PubMed
Stark Z, Scott RH (2023) Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases. Nat Rev Genet 24:755–766. 10.1038/s41576-023-00621-w PubMed
Wakefield CE, Hanlon LV, Tucker KM et al (2016) The psychological impact of genetic information on children: a systematic review. Genet Med 18(8):755–762. 10.1038/gim.2015.181 PubMed
Redondo MJ, Gignoux CR, Dabelea D et al (2022) Type 1 diabetes in diverse ancestries and the use of genetic risk scores. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 10(8):597–608. 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00159-0 PubMed PMC
Gillespie KM, Bain SC, Barnett AH et al (2004) The rising incidence of childhood type 1 diabetes and reduced contribution of high-risk HLA haplotypes. Lancet 364(9446):1699–1700. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17357-1 PubMed
Weiss A, Zapardiel-Gonzalo J, Voss F et al (2022) Progression likelihood score identifies substages of presymptomatic type 1 diabetes in childhood public health screening. Diabetologia 65(12):2121–2131. 10.1007/s00125-022-05780-9 PubMed PMC