Сахарный диабет (Nov 2016)

Diagnostic value of islet autoantibody assays practised in Russia. 1. Classic immunofluorescence islet cell antibody assay, immunoradiometric glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody assay, and ELISA tyrosine phosphatase antibody and insulin antibody assays

  • Alexei V. Timofeev,
  • Ksenia A. Gorst,
  • Valentin Y. Uvarov,
  • Ekaterina A. Pronina,
  • Alisa V. Vitebskaya,
  • Anastasiya V. Popovich,
  • Anatoliy N. Tiulpakov,
  • Natalia A. Zubkova,
  • Olesya A. Gioeva,
  • Yulia V. Tikhonovich,
  • Alexander V. Ilin,
  • Oleg Y. Latyshev,
  • Goar F. Okminjan,
  • Ksenia L. Kabolova,
  • Julianna A. Kanokova,
  • Leokadia Y. Zhuleva,
  • Igor E. Koltunov,
  • Elena E. Petriaikina,
  • Irina G. Rybkina,
  • Irina V. Garyaeva,
  • Salome L. Guguchia,
  • Angelina B. Shimarova,
  • Artiom V. Bullikh,
  • Irina G. Kolomina,
  • Evgenia A. Evsyukova,
  • Sergei S. Bukin,
  • Natalia N. Egarmina,
  • Natalia Y. Arbatskaya,
  • Elina Y. Yanovskaya,
  • Vladimir I. Popenko,
  • Alexander A. Arkhipkin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14341/DM8032
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 4
pp. 331 – 340

Abstract

Read online

Objective. To estimate performance characteristics and diagnostic value of immunofluorescent islet cell antibody (ICA) assay, immunoradiometric glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody (GADA) assay, and ELISA tyrosine phosphatase IA-2 antibody (IA-2A) and insulin antibody (IA) assays.Research Design and Methods. Antibodies were tested in 438 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus (DM) type 1, and in 891 subjects without DM type 1. ICA were determined by the classic indirect immunofluorescent method recommended by the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International, GADA were determined with the Immunotech IRMA Anti-GAD kit, and IA-2A and IA were determined with Medizym Anti-IA2 and Orgentec Anti-Insulin ELISA kits, respectively. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the tests were estimated with contingency tables. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated from areas under receiver operating curves (AUC).Results. ICA test was of the greatest diagnostic value (Se=88%, Sp=96%, PPV=96%, NPV=94%, AUC=0,94), followed by IA-2A (Se=66%, Sp=98%, PPV=98%, NPV=59%, AUC=0,82) and GADA (Se=73%, Sp=84%, PPV=75%, NPV=83%, AUC=0,79). IA test exhibited a very low Se (4,3%) and lacked diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0,5).Conclusions. We recommend to use ICA, IA-2A and GADA tests surveyed in our study for diagnosis of DM type 1 and differential diagnosis of DM. We don’t recommend IA testing with an Orgentec Anti-Insulin ELISA kit for usage in clinical practice.

Keywords