Potential Value of Identifying Type 2 Diabetes Subgroups for Guiding Intensive Treatment: A Comparison of Novel Data-Driven Clustering With Risk-Driven Subgroups.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact on lifetime health and economic outcomes of different methods of stratifying individuals with type 2 diabetes, followed by guideline-based treatment intensification targeting BMI and LDL in addition to HbA1c. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We divided 2,935 newly diagnosed individuals from the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort into five Risk Assessment and Progression of Diabetes (RHAPSODY) data-driven clustering subgroups (based on age, BMI, HbA1c, C-peptide, and HDL) and four risk-driven subgroups by using fixed cutoffs for HbA1c and risk of cardiovascular disease based on guidelines. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 estimated discounted expected lifetime complication costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each subgroup and across all individuals. Gains from treatment intensification were compared with care as usual as observed in DCS. A sensitivity analysis was conducted based on Ahlqvist subgroups. RESULTS: Under care as usual, prognosis in the RHAPSODY data-driven subgroups ranged from 7.9 to 12.6 QALYs. Prognosis in the risk-driven subgroups ranged from 6.8 to 12.0 QALYs. Compared with homogenous type 2 diabetes, treatment for individuals in the high-risk subgroups could cost 22.0% and 25.3% more and still be cost effective for data-driven and risk-driven subgroups, respectively. Targeting BMI and LDL in addition to HbA1c might deliver up to 10-fold increases in QALYs gained. CONCLUSIONS: Risk-driven subgroups better discriminated prognosis. Both stratification methods supported stratified treatment intensification, with the risk-driven subgroups being somewhat better in identifying individuals with the most potential to benefit from intensive treatment. Irrespective of stratification approach, better cholesterol and weight control showed substantial potential for health gains.

Precision Medicine in Diabetes: A Consensus Report From the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The convergence of advances in medical science, human biology, data science, and technology has enabled the generation of new insights into the phenotype known as "diabetes." Increased knowledge of this condition has emerged from populations around the world, illuminating the differences in how diabetes presents, its variable prevalence, and how best practice in treatment varies between populations. In parallel, focus has been placed on the development of tools for the application of precision medicine to numerous conditions. This Consensus Report presents the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative in partnership with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), including its mission, the current state of the field, and prospects for the future. Expert opinions are presented on areas of precision diagnostics and precision therapeutics (including prevention and treatment), and key barriers to and opportunities for implementation of precision diabetes medicine, with better care and outcomes around the globe, are highlighted. Cases where precision diagnosis is already feasible and effective (i.e., monogenic forms of diabetes) are presented, while the major hurdles to the global implementation of precision diagnosis of complex forms of diabetes are discussed. The situation is similar for precision therapeutics, in which the appropriate therapy will often change over time owing to the manner in which diabetes evolves within individual patients. This Consensus Report describes a foundation for precision diabetes medicine, while highlighting what remains to be done to realize its potential. This, combined with a subsequent, detailed evidence-based review (due 2022), will provide a roadmap for precision medicine in diabetes that helps improve the quality of life for all those with diabetes.

Precision medicine in diabetes: a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The convergence of advances in medical science, human biology, data science and technology has enabled the generation of new insights into the phenotype known as 'diabetes'. Increased knowledge of this condition has emerged from populations around the world, illuminating the differences in how diabetes presents, its variable prevalence and how best practice in treatment varies between populations. In parallel, focus has been placed on the development of tools for the application of precision medicine to numerous conditions. This Consensus Report presents the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative in partnership with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), including its mission, the current state of the field and prospects for the future. Expert opinions are presented on areas of precision diagnostics and precision therapeutics (including prevention and treatment) and key barriers to and opportunities for implementation of precision diabetes medicine, with better care and outcomes around the globe, are highlighted. Cases where precision diagnosis is already feasible and effective (i.e. monogenic forms of diabetes) are presented, while the major hurdles to the global implementation of precision diagnosis of complex forms of diabetes are discussed. The situation is similar for precision therapeutics, in which the appropriate therapy will often change over time owing to the manner in which diabetes evolves within individual patients. This Consensus Report describes a foundation for precision diabetes medicine, while highlighting what remains to be done to realise its potential. This, combined with a subsequent, detailed evidence-based review (due 2022), will provide a roadmap for precision medicine in diabetes that helps improve the quality of life for all those with diabetes.

Sex and BMI Alter the Benefits and Risks of Sulfonylureas and Thiazolidinediones in Type 2 Diabetes: A Framework for Evaluating Stratification Using Routine Clinical and Individual Trial Data.

OBJECTIVE: The choice of therapy for type 2 diabetes after metformin is guided by overall estimates of glycemic response and side effects seen in large cohorts. A stratified approach to therapy would aim to improve on this by identifying subgroups of patients whose glycemic response or risk of side effects differs markedly. We assessed whether simple clinical characteristics could identify patients with differing glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 22,379 patients starting sulfonylurea or thiazolidinedione therapy in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify features associated with increased 1-year HbA1c fall with one therapy class and reduced fall with the second. We then assessed whether prespecified patient subgroups defined by the differential clinical factors showed differing 5-year glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones using individual randomized trial data from ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) (first-line therapy, n = 2,725) and RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes) (second-line therapy, n = 2,222). Further replication was conducted using routine clinical data from GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland) (n = 1,977). RESULTS: In CPRD, male sex and lower BMI were associated with greater glycemic response with sulfonylureas and a lesser response with thiazolidinediones (both P < 0.001). In ADOPT and RECORD, nonobese males had a greater overall HbA1c reduction with sulfonylureas than with thiazolidinediones (P < 0.001); in contrast, obese females had a greater HbA1c reduction with thiazolidinediones than with sulfonylureas (P < 0.001). Weight gain and edema risk with thiazolidinediones were greatest in obese females; however, hypoglycemia risk with sulfonylureas was similar across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patient subgroups defined by sex and BMI have different patterns of benefits and risks on thiazolidinedione and sulfonylurea therapy. Subgroup-specific estimates can inform discussion about the choice of therapy after metformin for an individual patient. Our approach using routine and shared trial data provides a framework for future stratification research in type 2 diabetes.

Costs and Treatment Pathways for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK: A Mastermind Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Medication therapy for type 2 diabetes has become increasingly complex, and there are few reliable data on the current state of clinical practice. We report treatment pathways and associated costs of medication therapy for people with type 2 diabetes in the UK, their variability and changes over time. METHODS: Prescription and biomarker data for 7159 people with type 2 diabetes were extracted from the GoDARTS cohort study, covering the period 1989-2013. Average follow-up was 10 years. Individuals were prescribed on average 2.4 (SD: 1.2) drugs with average annual costs of £241. We calculated summary statistics for first- and second-line therapies. Linear regression models were used to estimate associations between therapy characteristics and baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: Average time from diagnosis to first prescription was 3 years (SD: 4.0 years). Almost all first-line therapy (98%) was monotherapy, with average annual cost of £83 (SD: £204) for 3.8 (SD: 3.5) years. Second-line therapy was initiated in 73% of all individuals, at an average annual cost of £219 (SD: £305). Therapies involving insulin were markedly more expensive than other common therapies. Baseline HbA1c was unrelated to future therapy costs, but higher average HbA1c levels over time were associated with higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: Medication therapy has undergone substantial changes during the period covered in this study. For example, therapy is initiated earlier and is less expensive than in the past. The data provided in this study will prove useful for future modelling studies, e.g. of stratified treatment approaches.

Population-Based Assessment of a Biomarker-Based Screening Pathway to Aid Diagnosis of Monogenic Diabetes in Young-Onset Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Monogenic diabetes, a young-onset form of diabetes, is often misdiagnosed as type 1 diabetes, resulting in unnecessary treatment with insulin. A screening approach for monogenic diabetes is needed to accurately select suitable patients for expensive diagnostic genetic testing. We used C-peptide and islet autoantibodies, highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for discriminating type 1 from non-type 1 diabetes, in a biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger, currently younger than 50 years, in two U.K. regions with existing high detection of monogenic diabetes. The biomarker screening pathway comprised three stages: 1) assessment of endogenous insulin secretion using urinary C-peptide/creatinine ratio (UCPCR); 2) if UCPCR was ≥0.2 nmol/mmol, measurement of GAD and IA2 islet autoantibodies; and 3) if negative for both autoantibodies, molecular genetic diagnostic testing for 35 monogenic diabetes subtypes. RESULTS: A total of 1,407 patients participated (1,365 with no known genetic cause, 34 with monogenic diabetes, and 8 with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes). A total of 386 out of 1,365 (28%) patients had a UCPCR ≥0.2 nmol/mmol, and 216 out of 386 (56%) were negative for GAD and IA2 and underwent molecular genetic testing. Seventeen new cases of monogenic diabetes were diagnosed (8 common Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young [Sanger sequencing] and 9 rarer causes [next-generation sequencing]) in addition to the 34 known cases (estimated prevalence of 3.6% [51/1,407] [95% CI 2.7-4.7%]). The positive predictive value was 20%, suggesting a 1-in-5 detection rate for the pathway. The negative predictive value was 99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes is an effective, cheap, and easily implemented approach to systematically screening all young-onset patients. The minimum prevalence of monogenic diabetes is 3.6% of patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger.