[Detection of antibodies against pancreatic islet cells in clinical practice]

Development of diabetes mellitus caused by pancreatic beta-cell destruction of autoimmune origin is the result of a long lasting process. The most easily examinable feature of this stage is the occurrence of the islet cell antibodies. The sera which are positive for islet cell cytoplasmic antibodies (ICA), examined by indirect immunofluorescence, contain a mixture of antibodies. The glutamic acid decarbocylase (GAD), the tyrosin phosphatase (IA2), the insulin, and the GM2-1 glycolipid can be the targets of these antibodies. One can routinely examine the ICA, the GADA, the IA2 antibodies. The detection of antibodies against insulin (IAA) and GM-2-1 glycolipid is not invented in the routine laboratory work. The aim of the authors was the evaluation of clinical significance of occurrence of islet cell antibodies: one hundred and eighteen nondiabetic children an adult human being without known diabetic first degree relatives and 366 type 1 diabetic children and adult patients served as controls. The authors evaluated the predictive value of the different islet cell antibodies to the development of type 1 diabetes mellitus in 596 nondiabetic children with type 1 diabetic first degree relatives. The authors looked for markers of beta-cell destruction among sera of 320 diabetics manifested after 30 years of age with at least half a year of non-insulin-dependency and in the sera of 68 females suffered from gestational diabetes after 0-14 years of the index pregnancy. Finally the authors report 7 cases in which the examination of islet cell antibodies helped the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Indirect immunofluorescence method was used for the detection of ICA, radioimmunoassay for that of GADA and IA2 antibodies. There was no positive reaction for ICA and GADA in the nondiabetic population without diabetic first degree relatives. Among the freshly diagnosed type 1 diabetic children 39% were positive for only ICA, 44% for only GADA and 80% for any antibodies. Among the freshly manifested type 1 diabetic adults ICA positivity only was observed in 21%, GADA positivity only in 7.1% and 93% for any antibodies. From the 595 nondiabetic children with type 1 diabetic first degree relatives 23 were positive for ICA, from whom 5 became diabetic during a two years observation period. These diabetic children had multiplex autoantibodies besides ICA. One child from this group, who was negative for ICA became diabetic, too. Among type 2 diabetic patients 13% were positive for ICA alone, 17% were positive for GADA alone and 27% were positive for any antibodies. The insulin dependency manifested in a short time was associated with antibody positivity. Among the gestational diabetics 10 were found positive for ICA. From them, 7 were type 1 diabetics, and 3 were type 2 diabetics at the time of the detection of antibodies. The authors suggest the need of determination of islet cell antibodies in the group of nondiabetic first degree relatives of type 1 diabetic patients (ICA, GADA, IA2 and IAA), in the group of non-insulin-dependent diabetics (ICA and GADA) as a screening for later insulin dependency, and in gestational diabetes after delivery (ICA) as screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus.