Longitudinal Assessment of Pancreas Volume by MRI Predicts Progression to Stage 3 Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter prospective cohort study compared pancreas volume as assessed by MRI, metabolic scores derived from oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT), and a combination of pancreas volume and metabolic scores for predicting progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes (T1D) in individuals with multiple diabetes-related autoantibodies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Pancreas MRI was performed in 65 multiple autoantibody-positive participants enrolled in the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study. Prediction of progression to stage 3 T1D was assessed using pancreas volume index (PVI), OGTT-derived Index60 score and Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 Risk Score (DPTRS), and a combination of PVI and DPTRS. RESULTS: PVI, Index60, and DPTRS were all significantly different at study entry in 11 individuals who subsequently experienced progression to stage 3 T1D compared with 54 participants who did not experience progression (P < 0.005). PVI did not correlate with metabolic testing across individual study participants. PVI declined longitudinally in the 11 individuals diagnosed with stage 3 T1D, whereas Index60 and DPTRS increased. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting progression to stage 3 from measurements at study entry was 0.76 for PVI, 0.79 for Index60, 0.79 for DPTRS, and 0.91 for PVI plus DPTRS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that measures of pancreas volume and metabolism reflect distinct components of risk for developing stage 3 type 1 diabetes and that a combination of these measures may provide superior prediction than either alone.

First-Line Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists : A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor agonists as second-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Expanding their use as first-line therapy has been proposed but the clinical benefits may not outweigh their costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a strategy of first-line SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP1 receptor agonists. DESIGN: Individual-level Monte Carlo-based Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Randomized trials, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases, RED BOOK, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. TARGET POPULATION: Drug-naive U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: First-line SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP1 receptor agonists. OUTCOME MEASURES: Life expectancy, lifetime costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: First-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists had lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with metformin. First-line SGLT2 inhibitors cost $43 000 more and added 1.8 quality-adjusted months versus first-line metformin ($478 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). First-line injectable GLP1 receptor agonists cost more and reduced QALYs compared with metformin. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: By removing injection disutility, first-line GLP1 receptor agonists were no longer dominated (ICER, $327 000 per QALY). Oral GLP1 receptor agonists were not cost-effective (ICER, $823 000 per QALY). To be cost-effective at under $150 000 per QALY, costs for SGLT2 inhibitors would need to be under $5 per day and under $6 per day for oral GLP1 receptor agonists. LIMITATION: U.S. population and costs not generalizable internationally. CONCLUSION: As first-line agents, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists would improve type 2 diabetes outcomes, but their costs would need to fall by at least 70% to be cost-effective. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Diabetes Association.

The demise of islet allotransplantation in the United States: A call for an urgent regulatory update.

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and "more than minimally manipulated" human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as "minimally manipulated tissue" and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo-ITx) becoming a standard-of-care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States.

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.

A review of the mental health issues of diabetes conference.

Individuals with type 1 diabetes are at increased risk for depression, anxiety disorder, and eating disorder diagnoses. People with type 1 diabetes are also at risk for subclinical levels of diabetes distress and anxiety. These mental/behavioral health comorbidities of diabetes are associated with poor adherence to treatment and poor glycemic control, thus increasing the risk for serious short- and long-term physical complications, which can result in blindness, amputations, stroke, cognitive decline, decreased quality of life, as well as premature death. When mental health comorbidities of diabetes are not diagnosed and treated, the financial cost to society and health care systems is catastrophic, and the human suffering that results is profound. This review summarizes state-of-the-art presentations and working group scholarly reports from the Mental Health Issues of Diabetes Conference (7-8 October 2013, Philadelphia, PA), which included stakeholders from the National Institutes of Health, people living with type 1 diabetes and their families, diabetes consumer advocacy groups, the insurance industry, as well as psychologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, and nurse practitioners who are all nationally and internationally recognized experts in type 1 diabetes research and care. At this landmark conference current evidence for the incidence and the consequences of mental health problems in type 1 diabetes was presented, supporting the integration of mental health screening and mental health care into routine diabetes medical care. Future research directions were recommended to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of paradigms of diabetes care in which physical and mental health care are both priorities.

Cost-effectiveness of MODY genetic testing: translating genomic advances into practical health applications.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a genetic testing policy for HNF1A-, HNF4A-, and GCK-MODY in a hypothetical cohort of type 2 diabetic patients 25-40 years old with a MODY prevalence of 2%. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used a simulation model of type 2 diabetes complications based on UK Prospective Diabetes Study data, modified to account for the natural history of disease by genetic subtype to compare a policy of genetic testing at diabetes diagnosis versus a policy of no testing. Under the screening policy, successful sulfonylurea treatment of HNF1A-MODY and HNF4A-MODY was modeled to produce a glycosylated hemoglobin reduction of -1.5% compared with usual care. GCK-MODY received no therapy. Main outcome measures were costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based on lifetime risk of complications and treatments, expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (USD/QALY). RESULTS The testing policy yielded an average gain of 0.012 QALYs and resulted in an ICER of 205,000 USD. Sensitivity analysis showed that if the MODY prevalence was 6%, the ICER would be ~50,000 USD. If MODY prevalence was >30%, the testing policy was cost saving. Reducing genetic testing costs to 700 USD also resulted in an ICER of ~50,000 USD. CONCLUSIONS Our simulated model suggests that a policy of testing for MODY in selected populations is cost-effective for the U.S. based on contemporary ICER thresholds. Higher prevalence of MODY in the tested population or decreased testing costs would enhance cost-effectiveness. Our results make a compelling argument for routine coverage of genetic testing in patients with high clinical suspicion of MODY.

The cost-effectiveness of personalized genetic medicine: the case of genetic testing in neonatal diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Neonatal diabetes mellitus is a rare form of diabetes diagnosed in infancy. Nearly half of patients with permanent neonatal diabetes have mutations in the genes for the ATP-sensitive potassium channel (KCNJ11 and ABCC8) that allow switching from insulin to sulfonylurea therapy. Although treatment conversion has dramatic benefits, the cost-effectiveness of routine genetic testing is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a societal cost-utility analysis comparing a policy of routine genetic testing to no testing among children with permanent neonatal diabetes. We used a simulation model of type 1 diabetic complications, with the outcome of interest being the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) over 30 years of follow-up. RESULTS: In the base case, the testing policy dominated the no-testing policy. The testing policy was projected to bring about quality-of-life benefits that enlarged over time (0.32 QALYs at 10 years, 0.70 at 30 years) and produced savings in total costs that were present as early as 10 years ($12,528 at 10 years, $30,437 at 30 years). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the testing policy would remain cost-saving as long as the prevalence of the genetic defects remained >3% and would retain an ICER <$200,000/QALY at prevalences between 0.7 and 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing in neonatal diabetes improves quality of life and lowers costs. This paradigmatic case study highlights the potential economic impact of applying the concepts of personalized genetic medicine to other disorders in the future.