Browsing by Author "Dabelea, Dana"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Adult-Onset Type 1 Diabetes: Current Understanding and Challenges
    (American Diabetes Association, 2021-11) Leslie, R. David; Evans-Molina, Carmella; Freund-Brown, Jacquelyn; Buzzetti, Raffaella; Dabelea, Dana; Gillespie, Kathleen M.; Goland, Robin; Jones, Angus G.; Kacher, Mark; Phillips, Lawrence S.; Rolandsson, Olov; Wardian, Jana L.; Dunne, Jessica L.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Recent epidemiological data have shown that more than half of all new cases of type 1 diabetes occur in adults. Key genetic, immune, and metabolic differences exist between adult- and childhood-onset type 1 diabetes, many of which are not well understood. A substantial risk of misclassification of diabetes type can result. Notably, some adults with type 1 diabetes may not require insulin at diagnosis, their clinical disease can masquerade as type 2 diabetes, and the consequent misclassification may result in inappropriate treatment. In response to this important issue, JDRF convened a workshop of international experts in November 2019. Here, we summarize the current understanding and unanswered questions in the field based on those discussions, highlighting epidemiology and immunogenetic and metabolic characteristics of adult-onset type 1 diabetes as well as disease-associated comorbidities and psychosocial challenges. In adult-onset, as compared with childhood-onset, type 1 diabetes, HLA-associated risk is lower, with more protective genotypes and lower genetic risk scores; multiple diabetes-associated autoantibodies are decreased, though GADA remains dominant. Before diagnosis, those with autoantibodies progress more slowly, and at diagnosis, serum C-peptide is higher in adults than children, with ketoacidosis being less frequent. Tools to distinguish types of diabetes are discussed, including body phenotype, clinical course, family history, autoantibodies, comorbidities, and C-peptide. By providing this perspective, we aim to improve the management of adults presenting with type 1 diabetes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Disease-modifying therapies and features linked to treatment response in type 1 diabetes prevention: a systematic review
    (Springer Nature, 2023-10-05) Felton, Jamie L.; Griffin, Kurt J.; Oram, Richard A.; Speake, Cate; Long, S. Alice; Onengut-Gumuscu, Suna; Rich, Stephen S.; Monaco, Gabriela S. F.; Evans-Molina, Carmella; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Ismail, Heba M.; Steck, Andrea K.; Dabelea, Dana; Johnson, Randi K.; Urazbayeva, Marzhan; Gitelman, Stephen; Wentworth, John M.; Redondo, Maria J.; Sims, Emily K.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) results from immune-mediated destruction of insulin-producing beta cells. Prevention efforts have focused on immune modulation and supporting beta cell health before or around diagnosis; however, heterogeneity in disease progression and therapy response has limited translation to clinical practice, highlighting the need for precision medicine approaches to T1D disease modification. Methods: To understand the state of knowledge in this area, we performed a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials with ≥50 participants cataloged in PubMed or Embase from the past 25 years testing T1D disease-modifying therapies and/or identifying features linked to treatment response, analyzing bias using a Cochrane-risk-of-bias instrument. Results: We identify and summarize 75 manuscripts, 15 describing 11 prevention trials for individuals with increased risk for T1D, and 60 describing treatments aimed at preventing beta cell loss at disease onset. Seventeen interventions, mostly immunotherapies, show benefit compared to placebo (only two prior to T1D onset). Fifty-seven studies employ precision analyses to assess features linked to treatment response. Age, beta cell function measures, and immune phenotypes are most frequently tested. However, analyses are typically not prespecified, with inconsistent methods of reporting, and tend to report positive findings. Conclusions: While the quality of prevention and intervention trials is overall high, the low quality of precision analyses makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions that inform clinical practice. To facilitate precision medicine approaches to T1D prevention, considerations for future precision studies include the incorporation of uniform outcome measures, reproducible biomarkers, and prespecified, fully powered precision analyses into future trial design.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Islet autoantibodies as precision diagnostic tools to characterize heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review
    (Springer Nature, 2024-04-06) Felton, Jamie L.; Redondo, Maria J.; Oram, Richard A.; Speake, Cate; Long, S. Alice; Onengut-Gumuscu, Suna; Rich, Stephen S.; Monaco, Gabriela S. F.; Harris-Kawano, Arianna; Perez, Dianna; Saeed, Zeb; Hoag, Benjamin; Jain, Rashmi; Evans-Molina, Carmella; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Ismail, Heba M.; Dabelea, Dana; Johnson, Randi K.; Urazbayeva, Marzhan; Wentworth, John M.; Griffin, Kurt J.; Sims, Emily K.; ADA/EASD PMDI; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: Islet autoantibodies form the foundation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis and staging, but heterogeneity exists in T1D development and presentation. We hypothesized that autoantibodies can identify heterogeneity before, at, and after T1D diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies. Methods: We systematically reviewed PubMed and EMBASE databases (6/14/2022) assessing 10 years of original research examining relationships between autoantibodies and heterogeneity before, at, after diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies in individuals at-risk or within 1 year of T1D diagnosis. A critical appraisal checklist tool for cohort studies was modified and used for risk of bias assessment. Results: Here we show that 152 studies that met extraction criteria most commonly characterized heterogeneity before diagnosis (91/152). Autoantibody type/target was most frequently examined, followed by autoantibody number. Recurring themes included correlations of autoantibody number, type, and titers with progression, differing phenotypes based on order of autoantibody seroconversion, and interactions with age and genetics. Only 44% specifically described autoantibody assay standardization program participation. Conclusions: Current evidence most strongly supports the application of autoantibody features to more precisely define T1D before diagnosis. Our findings support continued use of pre-clinical staging paradigms based on autoantibody number and suggest that additional autoantibody features, particularly in relation to age and genetic risk, could offer more precise stratification. To improve reproducibility and applicability of autoantibody-based precision medicine in T1D, we propose a methods checklist for islet autoantibody-based manuscripts which includes use of precision medicine MeSH terms and participation in autoantibody standardization workshops.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine
    (Springer Nature, 2023) Tobias, Deirdre K.; Merino, Jordi; Ahmad, Abrar; Aiken, Catherine; Benham, Jamie L.; Bodhini, Dhanasekaran; Clark, Amy L.; Colclough, Kevin; Corcoy, Rosa; Cromer, Sara J.; Duan, Daisy; Felton, Jamie L.; Francis, Ellen C.; Gillard, Pieter; Gingras, Véronique; Gaillard, Romy; Haider, Eram; Hughes, Alice; Ikle, Jennifer M.; Jacobsen, Laura M.; Kahkoska, Anna R.; Kettunen, Jarno L. T.; Kreienkamp, Raymond J.; Lim, Lee-Ling; Männistö, Jonna M. E.; Massey, Robert; Mclennan, Niamh-Maire; Miller, Rachel G.; Morieri, Mario Luca; Most, Jasper; Naylor, Rochelle N.; Ozkan, Bige; Patel, Kashyap Amratlal; Pilla, Scott J.; Prystupa, Katsiaryna; Raghavan, Sridharan; Rooney, Mary R.; Schön, Martin; Semnani-Azad, Zhila; Sevilla-Gonzalez, Magdalena; Svalastoga, Pernille; Takele, Wubet Worku; Tam, Claudia Ha-Ting; Thuesen, Anne Cathrine B.; Tosur, Mustafa; Wallace, Amelia S.; Wang, Caroline C.; Wong, Jessie J.; Yamamoto, Jennifer M.; Young, Katherine; Amouyal, Chloé; Andersen, Mette K.; Bonham, Maxine P.; Chen, Mingling; Cheng, Feifei; Chikowore, Tinashe; Chivers, Sian C.; Clemmensen, Christoffer; Dabelea, Dana; Dawed, Adem Y.; Deutsch, Aaron J.; Dickens, Laura T.; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Dudenhöffer-Pfeifer, Monika; Evans-Molina, Carmella; Fernández-Balsells, María Mercè; Fitipaldi, Hugo; Fitzpatrick, Stephanie L.; Gitelman, Stephen E.; Goodarzi, Mark O.; Grieger, Jessica A.; Guasch-Ferré, Marta; Habibi, Nahal; Hansen, Torben; Huang, Chuiguo; Harris-Kawano, Arianna; Ismail, Heba M.; Hoag, Benjamin; Johnson, Randi K.; Jones, Angus G.; Koivula, Robert W.; Leong, Aaron; Leung, Gloria K. W.; Libman, Ingrid M.; Liu, Kai; Long, S. Alice; Lowe, William L., Jr.; Morton, Robert W.; Motala, Ayesha A.; Onengut-Gumuscu, Suna; Pankow, James S.; Pathirana, Maleesa; Pazmino, Sofia; Perez, Dianna; Petrie, John R.; Powe, Camille E.; Quinteros, Alejandra; Jain, Rashmi; Ray, Debashree; Ried-Larsen, Mathias; Saeed, Zeb; Santhakumar, Vanessa; Kanbour, Sarah; Sarkar, Sudipa; Monaco, Gabriela S. F.; Scholtens, Denise M.; Selvin, Elizabeth; Sheu, Wayne Huey-Herng; Speake, Cate; Stanislawski, Maggie A.; Steenackers, Nele; Steck, Andrea K.; Stefan, Norbert; Støy, Julie; Taylor, Rachael; Tye, Sok Cin; Ukke, Gebresilasea Gendisha; Urazbayeva, Marzhan; Van der Schueren, Bart; Vatier, Camille; Wentworth, John M.; Hannah, Wesley; White, Sara L.; Yu, Gechang; Zhang, Yingchai; Zhou, Shao J.; Beltrand, Jacques; Polak, Michel; Aukrust, Ingvild; de Franco, Elisa; Flanagan, Sarah E.; Maloney, Kristin A.; McGovern, Andrew; Molnes, Janne; Nakabuye, Mariam; Njølstad, Pål Rasmus; Pomares-Millan, Hugo; Provenzano, Michele; Saint-Martin, Cécile; Zhang, Cuilin; Zhu, Yeyi; Auh, Sungyoung; de Souza, Russell; Fawcett, Andrea J.; Gruber, Chandra; Mekonnen, Eskedar Getie; Mixter, Emily; Sherifali, Diana; Eckel, Robert H.; Nolan, John J.; Philipson, Louis H.; Brown, Rebecca J.; Billings, Liana K.; Boyle, Kristen; Costacou, Tina; Dennis, John M.; Florez, Jose C.; Gloyn, Anna L.; Gomez, Maria F.; Gottlieb, Peter A.; Greeley, Siri Atma W.; Griffin, Kurt; Hattersley, Andrew T.; Hirsch, Irl B.; Hivert, Marie-France; Hood, Korey K.; Josefson, Jami L.; Kwak, Soo Heon; Laffel, Lori M.; Lim, Siew S.; Loos, Ruth J. F.; Ma, Ronald C. W.; Mathieu, Chantal; Mathioudakis, Nestoras; Meigs, James B.; Misra, Shivani; Mohan, Viswanathan; Murphy, Rinki; Oram, Richard; Owen, Katharine R.; Ozanne, Susan E.; Pearson, Ewan R.; Perng, Wei; Pollin, Toni I.; Pop-Busui, Rodica; Pratley, Richard E.; Redman, Leanne M.; Redondo, Maria J.; Reynolds, Rebecca M.; Semple, Robert K.; Sherr, Jennifer L.; Sims, Emily K.; Sweeting, Arianne; Tuomi, Tiinamaija; Udler, Miriam S.; Vesco, Kimberly K.; Vilsbøll, Tina; Wagner, Robert; Rich, Stephen S.; Franks, Paul W.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Precision medicine is part of the logical evolution of contemporary evidence-based medicine that seeks to reduce errors and optimize outcomes when making medical decisions and health recommendations. Diabetes affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide, many of whom will develop life-threatening complications and die prematurely. Precision medicine can potentially address this enormous problem by accounting for heterogeneity in the etiology, clinical presentation and pathogenesis of common forms of diabetes and risks of complications. This second international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine summarizes the findings from a systematic evidence review across the key pillars of precision medicine (prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis) in four recognized forms of diabetes (monogenic, gestational, type 1, type 2). These reviews address key questions about the translation of precision medicine research into practice. Although not complete, owing to the vast literature on this topic, they revealed opportunities for the immediate or near-term clinical implementation of precision diabetes medicine; furthermore, we expose important gaps in knowledge, focusing on the need to obtain new clinically relevant evidence. Gaps include the need for common standards for clinical readiness, including consideration of cost-effectiveness, health equity, predictive accuracy, liability and accessibility. Key milestones are outlined for the broad clinical implementation of precision diabetes medicine.