Cargando…

Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians predominantly use clinical features to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes yet there are no evidence-based clinical criteria to aid classification of patients. Misclassification of diabetes is widespread (7–15% of cases), resulting in patients receiving inappropriate trea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shields, Beverley M, Peters, Jaime L, Cooper, Chris, Lowe, Jenny, Knight, Bridget A, Powell, Roy J, Jones, Angus, Hyde, Christopher J, Hattersley, Andrew T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26525723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009088
_version_ 1782399680553943040
author Shields, Beverley M
Peters, Jaime L
Cooper, Chris
Lowe, Jenny
Knight, Bridget A
Powell, Roy J
Jones, Angus
Hyde, Christopher J
Hattersley, Andrew T
author_facet Shields, Beverley M
Peters, Jaime L
Cooper, Chris
Lowe, Jenny
Knight, Bridget A
Powell, Roy J
Jones, Angus
Hyde, Christopher J
Hattersley, Andrew T
author_sort Shields, Beverley M
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Clinicians predominantly use clinical features to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes yet there are no evidence-based clinical criteria to aid classification of patients. Misclassification of diabetes is widespread (7–15% of cases), resulting in patients receiving inappropriate treatment. We sought to identify which clinical criteria could be used to discriminate type 1 and type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review of all diagnostic accuracy studies published since 1979 using clinical criteria to predict insulin deficiency (measured by C-peptide). DATA SOURCES: 14 databases including: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process and EMBASE. The search strategy took the form of: (terms for diabetes) AND (terms for C-Peptide). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Diagnostic accuracy studies of any routinely available clinical predictors against a reference standard of insulin deficiency defined by cut-offs of C-peptide concentrations. No restrictions on race, age, language or country of origin. RESULTS: 10 917 abstracts were screened, and 231 full texts reviewed. 11 studies met inclusion criteria, but varied by age, race, year and proportion of participants who were C-peptide negative. Age at diagnosis was the most discriminatory feature in 7/9 studies where it was assessed, with optimal cut-offs (>70% mean sensitivity and specificity) across studies being <30 years or <40 years. Use of/time to insulin treatment and body mass index (BMI) were also discriminatory. When combining features, BMI added little over age at diagnosis and/or time to insulin (<1% improvement in classification). CONCLUSIONS: Despite finding only 11 studies, and considerable heterogeneity between studies, age at diagnosis and time to insulin were consistently the most discriminatory criteria. BMI, despite being widely used in clinical practice, adds little to these two criteria. The criteria identified are similar to the Royal College of General Practitioners National Health Service (RCGP/NHS) Diabetes classification guidelines, which use age at diagnosis <35 years and time to insulin <6 m. Until further studies are carried out, these guidelines represent a suitable classification scheme. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO reference CRD42012001736.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4636628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46366282015-11-13 Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature Shields, Beverley M Peters, Jaime L Cooper, Chris Lowe, Jenny Knight, Bridget A Powell, Roy J Jones, Angus Hyde, Christopher J Hattersley, Andrew T BMJ Open Diabetes and Endocrinology OBJECTIVE: Clinicians predominantly use clinical features to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes yet there are no evidence-based clinical criteria to aid classification of patients. Misclassification of diabetes is widespread (7–15% of cases), resulting in patients receiving inappropriate treatment. We sought to identify which clinical criteria could be used to discriminate type 1 and type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review of all diagnostic accuracy studies published since 1979 using clinical criteria to predict insulin deficiency (measured by C-peptide). DATA SOURCES: 14 databases including: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process and EMBASE. The search strategy took the form of: (terms for diabetes) AND (terms for C-Peptide). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Diagnostic accuracy studies of any routinely available clinical predictors against a reference standard of insulin deficiency defined by cut-offs of C-peptide concentrations. No restrictions on race, age, language or country of origin. RESULTS: 10 917 abstracts were screened, and 231 full texts reviewed. 11 studies met inclusion criteria, but varied by age, race, year and proportion of participants who were C-peptide negative. Age at diagnosis was the most discriminatory feature in 7/9 studies where it was assessed, with optimal cut-offs (>70% mean sensitivity and specificity) across studies being <30 years or <40 years. Use of/time to insulin treatment and body mass index (BMI) were also discriminatory. When combining features, BMI added little over age at diagnosis and/or time to insulin (<1% improvement in classification). CONCLUSIONS: Despite finding only 11 studies, and considerable heterogeneity between studies, age at diagnosis and time to insulin were consistently the most discriminatory criteria. BMI, despite being widely used in clinical practice, adds little to these two criteria. The criteria identified are similar to the Royal College of General Practitioners National Health Service (RCGP/NHS) Diabetes classification guidelines, which use age at diagnosis <35 years and time to insulin <6 m. Until further studies are carried out, these guidelines represent a suitable classification scheme. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO reference CRD42012001736. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4636628/ /pubmed/26525723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009088 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Diabetes and Endocrinology
Shields, Beverley M
Peters, Jaime L
Cooper, Chris
Lowe, Jenny
Knight, Bridget A
Powell, Roy J
Jones, Angus
Hyde, Christopher J
Hattersley, Andrew T
Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature
title Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature
title_full Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature
title_fullStr Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature
title_full_unstemmed Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature
title_short Can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? A systematic review of the literature
title_sort can clinical features be used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes? a systematic review of the literature
topic Diabetes and Endocrinology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26525723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009088
work_keys_str_mv AT shieldsbeverleym canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT petersjaimel canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT cooperchris canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT lowejenny canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT knightbridgeta canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT powellroyj canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT jonesangus canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT hydechristopherj canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT hattersleyandrewt canclinicalfeaturesbeusedtodifferentiatetype1fromtype2diabetesasystematicreviewoftheliterature