Search

Introduction: Pharmaceutical treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have increased to include multiple classes of oral glucose-lowering agents but without accompanying guidance on which of these may most benefit individual patients. Clinicians lack information for treatment intensification after first-line metformin therapy. Stratifying patients by simple clinical characteristics may improve care by targeting treatment options to those in whom they are most effective. This academically designed and run three-way crossover trial aims to test a stratification approach using three standard oral glucose-lowering agents., Methods and Analysis: TriMaster is a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial taking place at up to 25 clinical sites across England, Scotland and Wales. 520 patients with T2DM treated with either metformin alone, or metformin and a sulfonylurea who have glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) >58 mmol/mol will be randomised to receive 16 weeks each of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor and thiazolidinedione in random order. Participants will be assessed at the end of each treatment period, providing clinical and biochemical data, and their experience of side effects. Participant preference will be assessed on completion of all three treatments. The primary endpoint is HbA 1c after 4 months of therapy (allowing a range of 12-18 weeks for analysis). Secondary endpoints include participant-reported preference between the three treatments, tolerability and prevalence of side effects., Ethical Approval: This study was approved by National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee South Central-Oxford A, study 16/SC/0147. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific meetings. A lay summary of results will be made available to all participants., Trial Registration Numbers: 12039221; 2015-002790-38 and NCT02653209., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EP has received Honoraria from Lilly. NS has consulted for Amgen, Astrazeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, Napp, NovoNordisk, Sanofi and Pfizer and received grant funding from Boehringer Ingelheim. RRH reports research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and personal fees from Bayer, Intarcia, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. CJ has consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, NovoNordisk and Sanofi. WH has received grant funding from IQVIA and travel funds from Eisai., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Monogenic diabetes is rare but is an important diagnosis in pediatric diabetes clinics. These patients are often not identified as this relies on the recognition of key clinical features by an alert clinician. Biomarkers (islet autoantibodies and C-peptide) can assist in the exclusion of patients with type 1 diabetes and allow systematic testing that does not rely on clinical recognition. Our study aimed to establish the prevalence of monogenic diabetes in U.K. pediatric clinics using a systematic approach of biomarker screening and targeted genetic testing., Research Design and Methods: We studied 808 patients (79.5% of the eligible population) <20 years of age with diabetes who were attending six pediatric clinics in South West England and Tayside, Scotland. Endogenous insulin production was measured using the urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR). C-peptide-positive patients (UCPCR ≥0.2 nmol/mmol) underwent islet autoantibody (GAD and IA2) testing, with patients who were autoantibody negative undergoing genetic testing for all 29 identified causes of monogenic diabetes., Results: A total of 2.5% of patients (20 of 808 patients) (95% CI 1.6-3.9%) had monogenic diabetes (8 GCK, 5 HNF1A, 4 HNF4A, 1 HNF1B, 1 ABCC8, 1 INSR). The majority (17 of 20 patients) were managed without insulin treatment. A similar proportion of the population had type 2 diabetes (3.3%, 27 of 808 patients)., Conclusions: This large systematic study confirms a prevalence of 2.5% of patients with monogenic diabetes who were <20 years of age in six U.K. clinics. This figure suggests that ∼50% of the estimated 875 U.K. pediatric patients with monogenic diabetes have still not received a genetic diagnosis. This biomarker screening pathway is a practical approach that can be used to identify pediatric patients who are most appropriate for genetic testing., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest to declare., (© 2016 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Aims/hypothesis: Maturity-onset diabetes of the young is frequently misdiagnosed as type 1 or type 2 diabetes. A correct diagnosis of MODY is important for determining treatment, but can only be confirmed by molecular genetic testing. We aimed to compare the regional distribution of confirmed MODY cases in the UK and to estimate the minimum prevalence., Methods: UK referrals for genetic testing in 2,072 probands and 1,280 relatives between 1996 and 2009 were examined by region, country and test result. Referral rate and prevalence were calculated using UK Census 2001 figures., Results: MODY was confirmed in 1,177 (35%) patients, with HNF1A (52%) and GCK mutations (32%) being most frequent in probands confirmed with MODY. There was considerable regional variation in proband referral rates (from <20 per million in Wales and Northern Ireland to >50 per million for South West England and Scotland) and patients diagnosed with MODY (5.3 per million in Northern Ireland, 48.9 per million in South West England). Referral rates and confirmed cases were highly correlated (r = 0.96, p < 0.0001). The minimum prevalence of MODY was estimated to be 108 cases per million., Conclusions/interpretation: Assuming this minimal prevalence throughout the UK then >80% of MODY is not diagnosed by molecular testing. The marked regional variation in the prevalence of confirmed MODY directly results from differences in referral rates. This could reflect variation in awareness of MODY or unequal access to genetic testing. Increased referral for diagnostic testing is required if the majority of MODY patients are to have the genetic diagnosis necessary for optimal treatment.