Redondo, Maria J.Nathan, Brandon M.Jacobsen, Laura M.Sims, EmilyBocchino, Laura E.Pugliese, AlbertoSchatz, Desmond A.Atkinson, Mark A.Skyler, JayPalmer, JerryGeyer, SusanSosenko, Jay M.Type 1 diabetes TrialNet Study Group2023-06-142023-06-142021Redondo MJ, Nathan BM, Jacobsen LM, et al. Index60 as an additional diagnostic criterion for type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2021;64(4):836-844. doi:10.1007/s00125-020-05365-4https://hdl.handle.net/1805/33751Aims/hypothesis: We aimed to compare characteristics of individuals identified in the peri-diagnostic range by Index60 (composite glucose and C-peptide measure) ≥2.00, 2 h OGTT glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l, or both. Methods: We studied autoantibody-positive participants in the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study who, at their baseline OGTT, had 2 h blood glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and/or Index60 ≥2.00 (n = 354, median age = 11.2 years, age range = 1.7-46.6; 49% male, 83% non-Hispanic White). Type 1 diabetes-relevant characteristics (e.g., age, C-peptide, autoantibodies, BMI) were compared among three mutually exclusive groups: 2 h glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and Index60 <2.00 [Glu(+), n = 76], 2 h glucose <11.1 mmol/l and Index60 ≥2.00 [Ind(+), n = 113], or both 2 h glucose ≥11.1 mmol/l and Index60 ≥2.00 [Glu(+)/Ind(+), n = 165]. Results: Participants in Glu(+), vs those in Ind(+) or Glu(+)/Ind(+), were older (mean ages = 22.9, 11.8 and 14.7 years, respectively), had higher early (30-0 min) C-peptide response (1.0, 0.50 and 0.43 nmol/l), higher AUC C-peptide (2.33, 1.13 and 1.10 nmol/l), higher percentage of overweight/obesity (58%, 16% and 30%) (all comparisons, p < 0.0001), and a lower percentage of multiple autoantibody positivity (72%, 92% and 93%) (p < 0.001). OGTT-stimulated C-peptide and glucose patterns of Glu(+) differed appreciably from Ind(+) and Glu(+)/Ind(+). Progression to diabetes occurred in 61% (46/76) of Glu(+) and 63% (71/113) of Ind(+). Even though Index60 ≥2.00 was not a Pathway to Prevention diagnostic criterion, Ind(+) had a 4 year cumulative diabetes incidence of 95% (95% CI 86%, 98%). Conclusions/interpretation: Participants in the Ind(+) group had more typical characteristics of type 1 diabetes than participants in the Glu(+) did and were as likely to be diagnosed. However, unlike Glu(+) participants, Ind(+) participants were not identified at the baseline OGTT.en-USPublisher PolicyC-peptideDiagnosisGlucoseHeterogeneityInsulin resistancePredictionType 1 diabetesType 2 diabetesArticle