Browsing by Author "Jacobsen, Laura M."
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Consensus guidance for monitoring individuals with islet autoantibody-positive pre-stage 3 type 1 diabetes(Springer, 2024-09) Phillip, Moshe; Achenbach, Peter; Addala, Ananta; Albanese-O'Neill, Anastasia; Battelino, Tadej; Bell, Kirstine J.; Besser, Rachel E. J.; Bonifacio, Ezio; Colhoun, Helen M.; Couper, Jennifer J.; Craig, Maria E.; Danne, Thomas; de Beaufort, Carine; Dovc, Klemen; Driscoll, Kimberly A.; Dutta, Sanjoy; Ebekozien, Osagie; Elding Larsson, Helena; Feiten, Daniel J.; Frohnert, Brigitte I.; Gabbay, Robert A.; Gallagher, Mary P.; Greenbaum, Carla J.; Griffin, Kurt J.; Hagopian, William; Haller, Michael J.; Hendrieckx, Christel; Hendriks, Emile; Holt, Richard I. G.; Hughes, Lucille; Ismail, Heba M.; Jacobsen, Laura M.; Johnson, Suzanne B.; Kolb, Leslie E.; Kordonouri, Olga; Lange, Karin; Lash, Robert W.; Lernmark, Åke; Libman, Ingrid; Lundgren, Markus; Maahs, David M.; Marcovecchio, M. Loredana; Mathieu, Chantal; Miller, Kellee M.; O'Donnell, Holly K.; Oron, Tal; Patil, Shivajirao P.; Pop-Busui, Rodica; Rewers, Marian J.; Rich, Stephen S.; Schatz, Desmond A.; Schulman-Rosenbaum, Rifka; Simmons, Kimber M.; Sims, Emily K.; Skyler, Jay S.; Smith, Laura B.; Speake, Cate; Steck, Andrea K.; Thomas, Nicholas P. B.; Tonyushkina, Ksenia N.; Veijola, Riitta; Wentworth, John M.; Wherrett, Diane K.; Wood, Jamie R.; Ziegler, Anette-Gabriele; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineGiven the proven benefits of screening to reduce diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) likelihood at the time of stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis, and emerging availability of therapy to delay disease progression, type 1 diabetes screening programmes are being increasingly emphasised. Once broadly implemented, screening initiatives will identify significant numbers of islet autoantibody-positive (IAb+) children and adults who are at risk of (confirmed single IAb+) or living with (multiple IAb+) early-stage (stage 1 and stage 2) type 1 diabetes. These individuals will need monitoring for disease progression; much of this care will happen in non-specialised settings. To inform this monitoring, JDRF in conjunction with international experts and societies developed consensus guidance. Broad advice from this guidance includes the following: (1) partnerships should be fostered between endocrinologists and primary-care providers to care for people who are IAb+; (2) when people who are IAb+ are initially identified there is a need for confirmation using a second sample; (3) single IAb+ individuals are at lower risk of progression than multiple IAb+ individuals; (4) individuals with early-stage type 1 diabetes should have periodic medical monitoring, including regular assessments of glucose levels, regular education about symptoms of diabetes and DKA, and psychosocial support; (5) interested people with stage 2 type 1 diabetes should be offered trial participation or approved therapies; and (6) all health professionals involved in monitoring and care of individuals with type 1 diabetes have a responsibility to provide education. The guidance also emphasises significant unmet needs for further research on early-stage type 1 diabetes to increase the rigour of future recommendations and inform clinical care.Item Correction to: Consensus guidance for monitoring individuals with islet autoantibody‑positive pre‑stage 3 type 1 diabetes(Springer, 2024) Phillip, Moshe; Achenbach, Peter; Addala, Ananta; Albanese-O'Neill, Anastasia; Battelino, Tadej; Bell, Kirstine J.; Besser, Rachel E. J.; Bonifacio, Ezio; Colhoun, Helen M.; Couper, Jennifer J.; Craig, Maria E.; Danne, Thomas; de Beaufort, Carine; Dovc, Klemen; Driscoll, Kimberly A.; Dutta, Sanjoy; Ebekozien, Osagie; Elding Larsson, Helena; Feiten, Daniel J.; Frohnert, Brigitte I.; Gabbay, Robert A.; Gallagher, Mary P.; Greenbaum, Carla J.; Griffin, Kurt J.; Hagopian, William; Haller, Michael J.; Hendrieckx, Christel; Hendriks, Emile; Holt, Richard I. G.; Hughes, Lucille; Ismail, Heba M.; Jacobsen, Laura M.; Johnson, Suzanne B.; Kolb, Leslie E.; Kordonouri, Olga; Lange, Karin; Lash, Robert W.; Lernmark, Åke; Libman, Ingrid; Lundgren, Markus; Maahs, David M.; Marcovecchio, M. Loredana; Mathieu, Chantal; Miller, Kellee M.; O'Donnell, Holly K.; Oron, Tal; Patil, Shivajirao P.; Pop-Busui, Rodica; Rewers, Marian J.; Rich, Stephen S.; Schatz, Desmond A.; Schulman-Rosenbaum, Rifka; Simmons, Kimber M.; Sims, Emily K.; Skyler, Jay S.; Smith, Laura B.; Speake, Cate; Steck, Andrea K.; Thomas, Nicholas P. B.; Tonyushkina, Ksenia N.; Veijola, Riitta; Wentworth, John M.; Wherrett, Diane K.; Wood, Jamie R.; Ziegler, Anette-Gabriele; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineItem Index60 as an additional diagnostic criterion for type 1 diabetes(Springer, 2021) Redondo, Maria J.; Nathan, Brandon M.; Jacobsen, Laura M.; Sims, Emily; Bocchino, Laura E.; Pugliese, Alberto; Schatz, Desmond A.; Atkinson, Mark A.; Skyler, Jay; Palmer, Jerry; Geyer, Susan; Sosenko, Jay M.; Type 1 diabetes TrialNet Study Group; Pediatrics, School of MedicineAims/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.Item Index60 Is Superior to HbA1c for Identifying Individuals at High Risk for Type 1 Diabetes(Oxford University Press, 2022) Jacobsen, Laura M.; Bundy, Brian N.; Ismail, Heba M.; Clements, Mark; Warnock, Megan; Geyer, Susan; Schatz, Desmond A.; Sosenko, Jay M.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineContext: HbA1c from ≥ 5.7% to < 6.5% (39-46 mmol/mol) indicates prediabetes according to American Diabetes Association guidelines, yet its identification of prediabetes specific for type 1 diabetes has not been assessed. A composite glucose and C-peptide measure, Index60, identifies individuals at high risk for type 1 diabetes. Objective: We compared Index60 and HbA1c thresholds as markers for type 1 diabetes risk. Methods: TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study participants with ≥ 2 autoantibodies (GADA, IAA, IA-2A, or ZnT8A) who had oral glucose tolerance tests and HbA1c measurements underwent 1) predictive time-dependent modeling of type 1 diabetes risk (n = 2776); and 2) baseline comparisons between high-risk mutually exclusive groups: Index60 ≥ 2.04 (n = 268) vs HbA1c ≥ 5.7% (n = 268). The Index60 ≥ 2.04 threshold was commensurate in ordinal ranking with the standard prediabetes threshold of HbA1c ≥ 5.7%. Results: In mutually exclusive groups, individuals exceeding Index60 ≥ 2.04 had a higher cumulative incidence of type 1 diabetes than those exceeding HbA1c ≥ 5.7% (P < 0.0001). Appreciably more individuals with Index60 ≥ 2.04 were at stage 2, and among those at stage 2, the cumulative incidence was higher for those with Index60 ≥ 2.04 (P = 0.02). Those with Index60 ≥ 2.04 were younger, with lower BMI, greater autoantibody number, and lower C-peptide than those with HbA1c ≥ 5.7% (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Conclusion: Individuals with Index60 ≥ 2.04 are at greater risk for type 1 diabetes with features more characteristic of the disorder than those with HbA1c ≥ 5.7%. Index60 ≥ 2.04 is superior to the standard HbA1c ≥ 5.7% threshold for identifying prediabetes in autoantibody-positive individuals. These findings appear to justify using Index60 ≥ 2.04 as a prediabetes criterion in this population.Item Persistence of b-Cell Responsiveness for Over Two Years in Autoantibody-Positive Children With Marked Metabolic Impairment at Screening(American Diabetes Association, 2022-12-01) Sims, Emily K.; Cuthbertson, David; Felton, Jamie L.; Ismail, Heba M.; Nathan, Brandon M.; Jacobsen, Laura M.; Paprocki, Emily; Pugliese, Alberto; Palmer, Jerry; Atkinson, Mark; Evans-Molina, Carmella; Skyler, Jay S.; Redondo, Maria J.; Herold, Kevan C.; Sosenko, Jay M.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineOBJECTIVE We studied longitudinal differences between progressors and nonprogressors to type 1 diabetes with similar and substantial baseline risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Changes in 2-h oral glucose tolerance test indices were used to examine variability in diabetes progression in the Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 (DPT-1) study (n = 246) and Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study (TNPTP) (n = 503) among autoantibody (Ab)+ children (aged <18.0 years) with similar baseline metabolic impairment (DPT-1 Risk Score [DPTRS] of 6.5–7.5), as well as in TNPTP Ab− children (n = 94). RESULTS Longitudinal analyses revealed annualized area under the curve (AUC) of C-peptide increases in nonprogressors versus decreases in progressors (P ≤ 0.026 for DPT-1 and TNPTP). Vector indices for AUC glucose and AUC C-peptide changes (on a two-dimensional grid) also differed significantly (P < 0.001). Despite marked baseline metabolic impairment of nonprogressors, changes in AUC C-peptide, AUC glucose, AUC C-peptide–to–AUC glucose ratio (AUC ratio), and Index60 did not differ from Ab− relatives during follow-up. Divergence between nonprogressors and progressors occurred by 6 months from baseline in both cohorts (AUC glucose, P ≤ 0.007; AUC ratio, P ≤ 0.034; Index60, P < 0.001; vector indices of change, P < 0.001). Differences in 6-month change were positively associated with greater diabetes risk (respectively, P < 0.001, P ≤ 0.019, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001) in DPT-1 and TNPTP, except AUC ratio, which was inversely associated with risk (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Novel findings show that even with similarly abnormal baseline risk, progressors had appreciably more metabolic impairment than nonprogressors within 6 months and that the measures showing impairment were predictive of type 1 diabetes. Longitudinal metabolic patterns did not differ between nonprogressors and Ab− relatives, suggesting persistent β-cell responsiveness in nonprogressors.Item The risk of progression to type 1 diabetes is highly variable in individuals with multiple autoantibodies following screening(Springer Verlag, 2020-03) Jacobsen, Laura M.; Bocchino, Laura; Evans-Molina, Carmella; DiMeglio, Linda; Goland, Robin; Wilson, Darrell M.; Atkinson, Mark A.; Aye, Tandy; Russell, William E.; Wentworth, John M.; Boulware, David; Geyer, Susan; Sosenko, Jay M.; Medicine, School of MedicineAims/hypothesis: Young children who develop multiple autoantibodies (mAbs) are at very high risk for type 1 diabetes. We assessed whether a population with mAbs detected by screening is also at very high risk, and how risk varies according to age, type of autoantibodies and metabolic status. Methods: Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention participants with mAbs (n = 1815; age, 12.35 ± 9.39 years; range, 1-49 years) were analysed. Type 1 diabetes risk was assessed according to age, autoantibody type/number (insulin autoantibodies [IAA], glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies [GADA], insulinoma-associated antigen-2 autoantibodies [IA-2A] or zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies [ZnT8A]) and Index60 (composite measure of fasting C-peptide, 60 min glucose and 60 min C-peptide). Cox regression and cumulative incidence curves were utilised in this cohort study. Results: Age was inversely related to type 1 diabetes risk in those with mAbs (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.96, 0.99]). Among participants with 2 autoantibodies, those with GADA had less risk (HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.22, 0.57]) and those with IA-2A had higher risk (HR 2.82 [95% CI 1.76, 4.51]) of type 1 diabetes. Those with IAA and GADA had only a 17% 5 year risk of type 1 diabetes. The risk was significantly lower for those with Index60 <1.0 (HR 0.23 [95% CI 0.19, 0.30]) vs those with Index60 values ≥1.0. Among the 12% (225/1815) ≥12.0 years of age with GADA positivity, IA-2A negativity and Index60 <1.0, the 5 year risk of type 1 diabetes was 8%. Conclusions/interpretation: Type 1 diabetes risk varies substantially according to age, autoantibody type and metabolic status in individuals screened for mAbs. An appreciable proportion of older children and adults with mAbs appear to have a low risk of progressing to type 1 diabetes at 5 years. With this knowledge, clinical trials of type 1 diabetes prevention can better target those most likely to progress.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 MedicinePrecision 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.Item Who Is Enrolling? The Path to Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet’s Pathway to Prevention(American Diabetes Association, 2019-12) Sims, Emily K.; Geyer, Susan; Bennett Johnson, Suzanne; Libman, Ingrid; Jacobsen, Laura M.; Boulware, David; Rafkin, Lisa E.; Matheson, Della; Atkinson, Mark A.; Rodriguez, Henry; Spall, Maria; Elding Larsson, Helena; Wherrett, Diane K.; Greenbaum, Carla J.; Krischer, Jeffrey; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineObjective: To better understand potential facilitators of individual engagement in type 1 diabetes natural history and prevention studies through analysis of enrollment data in the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention (PTP) study. Research design and methods: We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine continued engagement of eligible participants at two time points: 1) the return visit after screening to confirm an initial autoantibody-positive (Ab+) test result and 2) the initial oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for enrollment into the monitoring protocol. Results: Of 5,387 subjects who screened positive for a single autoantibody (Ab), 4,204 (78%) returned for confirmatory Ab testing. Younger age was associated with increased odds of returning for Ab confirmation (age <12 years vs. >18 years: odds ratio [OR] 2.12, P < 0.0001). Racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to return for confirmation, particularly nonwhite non-Hispanic (OR 0.50, P < 0.0001) and Hispanic (OR 0.69, P = 0.0001) relative to non-Hispanic white subjects. Of 8,234 subjects, 5,442 (66%) were identified as eligible to be enrolled in PTP OGTT monitoring. Here, younger age and identification as multiple Ab+ were associated with increased odds of returning for OGTT monitoring (age <12 years vs. >18 years: OR 1.43, P < 0.0001; multiple Ab+: OR 1.36, P < 0.0001). Parents were less likely to enroll into monitoring than other relatives (OR 0.78, P = 0.004). Site-specific factors, including site volume and U.S. site versus international site, were also associated with differences in rates of return for Ab+ confirmation and enrollment into monitoring. Conclusions: These data confirm clear differences between successfully enrolled populations and those lost to follow-up, which can serve to identify strategies to increase ongoing participation.