Evidence Hub

Case Report: Misdiagnosis of Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young as type 1, type 2 or gestational diabetes: insights from a Latin American tertiary center

Ruiz-Urbaez R, Males-Maldonado D, Villagómez-Estrada MV, Reyes-Silva C, Salazar-Vega J, Jaramillo-Koupermann G, Sosa-Copa D, Gea-Izquierdo E

Frontiers in medicine, 2025

2 citations

Abstract

Background: Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY) comprises monogenic, non-syndromic forms of diabetes inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern. MODY is frequently misdiagnosed as type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D), or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Studies suggest that 50-90% of MODY cases are erroneously classified as type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and up to 5% of women with GDM may have undiagnosed MODY. However, data regarding the clinical presentation and genetic characterization of MODY in Latin American populations remain scarce. This study aimed to describe the clinical, analytical, and genetic characteristics of MODY patients initially misdiagnosed as T1D, T2D, or GDM in a Latin American tertiary care center.

Methods: Medical history, clinical and laboratory data were obtained from electronic medical records to assess diagnostic accuracy and identify phenotypic patterns suggestive of MODY. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was employed to detect mutations related to monogenic variants.

Results: We identified five patients with MODY. The median age at diabetes diagnosis was 13.6 years, while the median age at MODY diagnosis was 25.8 years. The average duration between the initial diabetes diagnosis and confirmation of MODY was 12.2 years. None of the patients presented with diabetic ketoacidosis at the onset of diabetes. All patients tested negative for islet cell autoimmunity. Of the five patients, two were initially misclassified as having T1D, two…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free