Infancy-Onset Diabetes Risks
Infancy-Onset Diabetes Risks
e-LETTERS – OBSERVATIONS
for diabetes was detected, participants 66.2% (Table 1), and odds of DKA in- recognize the student research assistants who
were subdivided by similar mutation sub- creased with age at diagnosis (odds ratio contributed to data entry on this project: Janu
Arun (Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin
types. Data were managed using REDCap per 1 month increase 1.23 [95% CI 1.04, 1.45]). University), Ade Ayoola (University of Chicago),
electronic data capture tools and ana- In this studydthe largest of its kindd Monica Lanning (University of Chicago), Maddie
lyzed using Stata version 14 (StataCorp, DKA was more frequent than in other McLaughlin (Purdue University), Kiran Munir
2015). early-onset U.S. studies (2,3) or other co- (Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin Uni-
The majority of participants were male horts of patients with neonatal diabetes versity), Sai Talluru (Johns Hopkins University),
and Kandace Williamson (University of Chicago).
(n = 46, 52%), Caucasian (n = 55, 63%), and (4,5). One reason for this may be a delay The authors thank all the clinicians providing care
living in the United States (n = 83, 94%). in diagnosis, which is reflected in the for patients within the Monogenic Diabetes Reg-
There was no significant difference across increased likelihood of DKA at a later istry (http://monogenicdiabetes.uchicago.edu).
1
Section of Adult and Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
2
Department of Endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
3
Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
4
Section of Adult and Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Pediatrics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
Corresponding author: Siri Atma W. Greeley, [email protected].
Received 8 June 2017 and accepted 19 July 2017.
© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and
the work is not altered. More information is available at http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.
e148 Diabetes Presentation in Infancy Diabetes Care Volume 40, October 2017
†Statistically significant by Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, or Fisher exact test. Because of limited sample sizes, pairwise comparisons were not performed. ‡Data available from 73 participants. §Data available
All data presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise specified. T1D, type 1 diabetes; NA, not available. *In most cases, the mutation subtype was not reported in the medical record but rather was available
for each case through the Monogenic Diabetes Registry data. Mutation subtypes were grouped according to functional similarities. All participants in the “Unknown” category did not have an identifiable monogenic
families who participated in this study.
,0.001†
,0.001†
,0.001†
P value
0.005†
0.02†
0.04†
cause of diabetes at the time of data analysis. Some of these participants had positive diabetes autoantibodies, and thus likely had autoimmune type 1 diabetes. “Total” category represents pooled participants.
Funding. This work was supported by an
investigator-initiated grant from Novo Nordisk;
grants from the National Institutes of Health
from 49 participants. |Data available from 58 participants. ¶Data available from 27 participants; HbA1c ,6 months are underestimated owing to fetal hemoglobin. #Data available from 71 participants.
and Kidney Diseases (R01DK104942, DRTC
7.08 (6.98–7.31)
P30DK020595, and K23DK094866 [to S.A.W.G.]),
10.4 (5.2–26.5)
618 (477–800)
7.7 (4.1–14.0)
7.0 (5.0–18.8)
the National Institutes of Health National Center
47 (66.2)
88 (100)
Total*
for Advancing Translational Sciences (CTSA
UL1TR000430), and the American Diabetes Asso-
ciation (1-11-CT-41 and 1-17-JDF-008); and gifts
from the Kovler Family Foundation.
Duality of Interest. No conflicts of interest rele-
vant to this article were reported.
Author Contributions. L.R.L. wrote the manu-
Unknown (likely T1D)*
7.08 (7.0–7.27)
5.0 (4.0–10.4)
19 (21.6)
14 (87.5)
interpreted data. K.W. provided biostatistical
analysis and interpreted data. A.M.D. conducted
the literature review and collected, analyzed, and
interpreted data. M.S. provided genetic testing
support and interpreted data. R.N.N. contributed
to study design and interpreted data. L.H.P. de-
signed the study, provided administrative
7.11 (6.9–7.31)
21.1 (20.0–21.8) 13.0 (6.0–20.0) 16.0 (7.0–25.0)
920 (342–1,600) 411 (355–467)
GATA6/PDX1*
3.2 (2.2–4.2)
6.95 (6.9–7.0)
14.8 (0–22.2)
4.9 [30]
3 (100)
3 (3.4)
References
3.7 (1.4–5.4)
0.4 (0–0.9)
10 (11.4)
6q24*
10 (6.1–17.4)
5.3 (2.5–8.6)
3 (30)
6.0 (4.6–11.0)
9.5 (5.2–14)
41 (46.6)
26 (78.8)
HbA1c, % [mmol/mol]¶
Bicarbonate, mmol/L|
Current age, years
Glucose, mg/dL‡
DKA, n (%)#
n (%)
pH§