Fourlanos et al. (1) report on a screening instrument designed to facilitate management of latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA). They assert that in poorly controlled type 2 patients exhibiting two or more of five features (age <50 years, hyperglycemic symptoms, BMI <25.0 kg/m2, and personal and family history of autoimmunity), the “logical ” next step is confirmatory islet antibody testing (1).
Although the effect of routine use of the instrument on outcomes such as HbA1c is unknown, the article raises important questions relating to the management of clinically diagnosed type 2 diabetes. The authors state that LADA patients can require rapid escalation of oral therapy or early commencement of insulin (1). However, patients with severely deficient β-cell function but insufficient LADA features still need insulin therapy. In addition, some LADA patients achieve reasonable initial glycemic control with oral agents (2), with insulin available should this strategy fail.
We have concerns that the LADA instrument fails to meet the necessary criteria for a valid screening tool (3). In their small study, Fourlanos et al. report a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 71%. However, the positive predictive value is 21%, indicating that the probability of correctly diagnosing LADA is low. This, and the high false-positive rate (28%), suggest a limited ability to identify patients most in need of early insulin therapy.
The authors’ apparent intention is to promote the instrument as part of usual care. Because of this, and since the American Diabetes Association does not recommend islet antibody testing in type 2 diabetes (4), why do the authors recommend serological confirmation (1)? Even in the case of children, in whom education, dietary counsel, and treatment differ markedly by diabetes type, autoantigens may be present in a substantial number with otherwise straightforward type 2 diabetes (4). One reason for antibody testing may be to characterize LADA patients fully for intervention studies (1), but this would only be appropriate in specialist centers.
We contend that the management of poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in adults should be based on detailed clinical assessment (including the LADA instrument components), review of glycemic control, implementation of strategies (including educator and dietitian input) that might improve adherence to self-management, a discussion of available therapies (including insulin), and adequate monitoring and support. The use of the LADA instrument and/or autoantibody testing appears redundant in this setting.
