ABSTRACT
Summary: We present a young woman with treatment resistant insulin autoimmune syndrome (IAS) with a protracted course. Her serum insulin level was 6945 pmol/l (<160), C-peptide 4042 pmol/L (<1480), anti-insulin antibodies 5305 U/mL (<0.4) were monoclonal IgG kappa. After 12 h of fasting, her blood glucose fell to 1.2 mmol/L. Post-meal blood glucose peaked at 12.2 mmol/L with reactive hypoglycaemia below 2 mmol/L. Frequent meals and continuous blood glucose monitoring were helpful, but further treatments advocated in the literature with prednisolone, rituximab, plasmapheresis, cyclophosphamide and ciclosporin were without beneficial effect. Based on this case and a review of the literature, we propose that IAS is not one but two different diseases with different therapeutic strategies. The first disease, polyclonal IAS, predominates in Asia and is characterized by polyclonal anti-insulin antibodies, association with certain HLA genotypes and other autoimmune conditions, medications and viral infections possibly triggering the disease, a possible female predominance among young patients and a tendency towards spontaneous remission. The other disease, monoclonal IAS, predominates in Caucasians. Typical features are monoclonal anti-insulin antibodies, only weak HLA association, no drug predisposition, no sex difference, rare remission and conventional therapy often being without any clinical effect. We suggest that monoclonal IAS with IgG or IgA anti-insulin antibodies should receive therapy targeting plasma cells rather than lymphocytes. Learning points: IAS may be considered as two separate diseases, polyclonal and monoclonal. The presence of either polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies should determine the choice of treatment for IAS. In polyclonal IAS, discontinuation of a triggering medication and treatment of triggering conditions should be the backbone of therapy. Monoclonal IAS should receive treatment targeting plasma cells.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is associated with greater and more sustainable weight loss compared with lifestyle intervention programs. On the other hand, bariatric surgery may also be associated with physical and psychosocial complications. The influence of psychological evaluation on treatment choice, however, is not known. We aimed to examine variables associated with treatment choice and, specifically, if self-reported lifetime adversity influenced obesity treatment, i.e. bariatric surgery, high-intensive lifestyle treatment or low-intensive lifestyle treatment in primary care. METHODS: We consecutively included 924 patients from the registry study of patients with morbid obesity at Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. Treatment selection was made through a shared decision-making process. Self-reported lifetime adversity was registered by trained personnel. Logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between obesity treatment and possible predictors. RESULTS: Patients who chose bariatric surgery were more likely to have type 2 diabetes (DM2) compared with patients who chose lifestyle treatment (bariatric surgery: 35%, high-intensive lifestyle treatment: 26%, and low-intensive lifestyle treatment: 26%; p = 0.035). Patients who chose bariatric surgery were less likely than patients who chose lifestyle intervention to report lifetime adversity (bariatric surgery: 39%, high-intensive lifestyle treatment: 47%, and low-intensive lifestyle treatment: 51%; p = 0.004). After multivariable adjustments, increasing BMI, having DM2, and joint pain were associated with choosing bariatric surgery over non-surgical obesity treatment (odds ratio [95% CI]: BMI 1.03 [1.01-1.06], DM2 1.47 [1.09-1.99], and joint pain 1.46 [1.08-1.96]). Self-reported lifetime adversity was furthermore associated with lower odds of choosing bariatric surgery in patients with morbid obesity (0.67 [0.51-0.89]). CONCLUSION: This study shows that increasing BMI, DM2, and joint pain were all associated with treatment choice for obesity. In addition, self-reported lifetime adversity was associated with the patients' treatment choice for morbid obesity. Consequently, we suggest that decisions concerning obesity treatment should include dialogue-based assessments of the patients' lifetime adversity.
