Relationship between the prevalence of anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies and duration of type 1 diabetes mellitus in Brazilian patients

9Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to determine whether the duration of disease has any influence on the prevalence of glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies (GADA) in Brazilian patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and variable disease duration. We evaluated 83 patients with T1D. All participants were interviewed and blood was obtained for GADA measurement by a commercial radioimmunoassay (RSR Limited, Cardiff, UK). Four groups of patients were established according to disease duration: A) 1-5 years of disease (N = 24), B) 6-10 years of disease (N = 19), C) 11-15 years of disease (N = 25), and D) > 15 years of disease (N = 15). GADA prevalence and its titers were determined in each group. GADA was positive in 38 patients (45.8%) and its frequency did not differ between the groups. The prevalence was 11/24 (45.8%), 8/19 (42.1%), 13/25 (52%), and 6/15 (40%) in groups A, B, C, and D, respectively (P = 0.874). Mean GADA titer was 12.54 ± 11.33 U/ml for the sample as a whole and 11.95 ± 11.8, 12.85 ± 12.07, 10.57 ± 8.35, and 17.45 ± 16.1 U/ml for groups A, B, C, and D, respectively (P = 0.686). Sex, age at diagnosis or ethnic background had no significant effect on GADA (+) frequency. In conclusion, in this transversal study, duration of disease did not affect significantly the prevalence of GADA or its titers in patients with T1D after one year of diagnosis. This was the first study to report this finding in the Brazilian population.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rodacki, M., Zajdenverg, L., Albernaz, M. S., Bencke-Gonçalves, M. R., Milech, A., & Oliveira, J. E. P. (2004). Relationship between the prevalence of anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies and duration of type 1 diabetes mellitus in Brazilian patients. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 37(11), 1645–1650. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2004001100008

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free