- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Knip, Mikael"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Introducing the Endotype Concept to Address the Challenge of Disease Heterogeneity in Type 1 Diabetes(American Diabetes Association, 2020-01) Battaglia, Manuela; Ahmed, Simi; Anderson, Mark S.; Atkinson, Mark A.; Becker, Dorothy; Bingley, Polly J.; Bosi, Emanuele; Brusko, Todd M.; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Evans-Molina, Carmella; Gitelman, Stephen E.; Greenbaum, Carla J.; Gottlieb, Peter A.; Herold, Kevan C.; Hessner, Martin J.; Knip, Mikael; Jacobsen, Laura; Krischer, Jeffrey P.; Long, S. Alice; Lundgren, Markus; McKinney, Eoin F.; Morgan, Noel G.; Oram, Richard A.; Pastinen, Tomi; Peters, Michael C.; Petrelli, Alessandra; Qian, Xiaoning; Redondo, Maria J.; Roep, Bart O.; Schatz, Desmond; Skibinski, David; Peakman, Mark; Pediatrics, School of MedicineThe clinical diagnosis of new-onset type 1 diabetes has, for many years, been considered relatively straightforward. Recently, however, there is increasing awareness that within this single clinical phenotype exists considerable heterogeneity: disease onset spans the complete age range; genetic susceptibility is complex; rates of progression differ markedly, as does insulin secretory capacity; and complication rates, glycemic control, and therapeutic intervention efficacy vary widely. Mechanistic and immunopathological studies typically show considerable patchiness across subjects, undermining conclusions regarding disease pathways. Without better understanding, type 1 diabetes heterogeneity represents a major barrier both to deciphering pathogenesis and to the translational effort of designing, conducting, and interpreting clinical trials of disease-modifying agents. This realization comes during a period of unprecedented change in clinical medicine, with increasing emphasis on greater individualization and precision. For complex disorders such as type 1 diabetes, the option of maintaining the "single disease" approach appears untenable, as does the notion of individualizing each single patient's care, obliging us to conceptualize type 1 diabetes less in terms of phenotypes (observable characteristics) and more in terms of disease endotypes (underlying biological mechanisms). Here, we provide our view on an approach to dissect heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes. Using lessons from other diseases and the data gathered to date, we aim to delineate a roadmap through which the field can incorporate the endotype concept into laboratory and clinical practice. We predict that such an effort will accelerate the implementation of precision medicine and has the potential for impact on our approach to translational research, trial design, and clinical management.Item Screening for Type 1 Diabetes in the General Population: A Status Report and Perspective(American Diabetes Association, 2022) Sims, Emily K.; Besser, Rachel E. J.; Dayan, Colin; Rasmussen, Cristy Geno; Greenbaum, Carla; Griffin, Kurt J.; Hagopian, William; Knip, Mikael; Long, Anna E.; Martin, Frank; Mathieu, Chantal; Rewers, Marian; Steck, Andrea K.; Wentworth, John M.; Rich, Stephen S.; Kordonouri, Olga; Ziegler, Anette-Gabriele; Herold, Kevan C.; NIDDK Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group; Pediatrics, School of MedicineMost screening programs to identify individuals at risk for type 1 diabetes have targeted relatives of people living with the disease to improve yield and feasibility. However, ∼90% of those who develop type 1 diabetes do not have a family history. Recent successes in disease-modifying therapies to impact the course of early-stage disease have ignited the consideration of the need for and feasibility of population screening to identify those at increased risk. Existing population screening programs rely on genetic or autoantibody screening, and these have yielded significant information about disease progression and approaches for timing for screening in clinical practice. At the March 2021 Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Steering Committee meeting, a session was held in which ongoing efforts for screening in the general population were discussed. This report reviews the background of these efforts and the details of those programs. Additionally, we present hurdles that need to be addressed for successful implementation of population screening and provide initial recommendations for individuals with positive screens so that standardized guidelines for monitoring and follow-up can be established.