Browsing by Author "Dunne, Jessica L."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • 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
    Response to Comment on Dunne et al. The Women's Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence. Diabetes Care 2021;44:1734-1743
    (American Diabetes Association, 2022) Dunne, Jessica L.; Maizel, Jennifer L.; Posgai, Amanda L.; Atkinson, Mark A.; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Women’s Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence
    (ADA, 2021-08) Dunne, Jessica L.; Maizel, Jennifer L.; Posgai, Amanda L.; Atkinson, Mark A.; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field.We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2–12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.