Diabetes
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schmidli, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Bonifacio, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schmidli, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Bonifacio, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Diabetes, Vol 44, Issue 6 636-640, Copyright © 1995 by American Diabetes Association

ARTICLES

Disease sensitivity and specificity of 52 assays for glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies. The Second International GADAB Workshop

RS Schmidli, PG Colman and E Bonifacio
Endocrinology Laboratory, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

There is increasing interest in the use of glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies (GADAbs) for identification of subjects at increased risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). However, considerable variation exists between laboratories in the reported frequency of GADAb in various clinical situations, and disease sensitivity and specificity have not yet been compared between assays. An international workshop was held in which 101 coded freeze-dried sera, including 39 from subjects with newly diagnosed IDDM, 32 from healthy control subjects, 4 from nondiabetic subjects with Graves' disease, and 4 from islet cell antibody-positive subjects, were analyzed in 52 assays (radiobinding assay [RBA], 26; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA], 19; and enzymatic immunoprecipitation assay [EIP], 7). The mean sensitivity for RBAs (76.2%) was higher than for ELISAs (36.5%) and EIPs (49.9%) (P < 0.01). The mean specificity was similar for each assay format (RBA, 89.4%; ELISA. 89.4%; and EIP, 92.3%). The lower sensitivities of the ELISA and EIP were predominantly due to the inability of these assays to detect low levels of GADAb in IDDM. To convert results to standard units, standard curves were constructed using duplicate dilutions of the anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase monoclonal antibody MICA 3 and serum from a patient with stiff-man syndrome (SMS). Curves could be derived in 28 assays using the MICA 3 serum and in 29 using the SMS serum. The mean coefficients of variation between assays for disease and control samples were 45% when results were converted to MICA units, 77% for SMS units, and 76% for SD scores.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum
Copyright © 1995 by the American Diabetes Association.