HLA Class II (DR, DQ, DP) Genes Were Separately Associated With the Progression From Seroconversion to Onset of Type 1 Diabetes Among Participants in Two Diabetes Prevention Trials (DPT-1 and TN07).

OBJECTIVE: To explore associations of HLA class II genes (HLAII) with the progression of islet autoimmunity from asymptomatic to symptomatic type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Next-generation targeted sequencing was used to genotype eight HLAII genes (DQA1, DQB1, DRB1, DRB3, DRB4, DRB5, DPA1, DPB1) in 1,216 participants from the Diabetes Prevention Trial-1 and Randomized Diabetes Prevention Trial with Oral Insulin sponsored by TrialNet. By the linkage disequilibrium, DQA1 and DQB1 are haplotyped to form DQ haplotypes; DP and DR haplotypes are similarly constructed. Together with available clinical covariables, we applied the Cox regression model to assess HLAII immunogenic associations with the disease progression. RESULTS: First, the current investigation updated the previously reported genetic associations of DQA1*03:01-DQB1*03:02 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25, P = 3.50*10-3) and DQA1*03:03-DQB1*03:01 (HR = 0.56, P = 1.16*10-3), and also uncovered a risk association with DQA1*05:01-DQB1*02:01 (HR = 1.19, P = 0.041). Second, after adjusting for DQ, DPA1*02:01-DPB1*11:01 and DPA1*01:03-DPB1*03:01 were found to have opposite associations with progression (HR = 1.98 and 0.70, P = 0.021 and 6.16*10-3, respectively). Third, DRB1*03:01-DRB3*01:01 and DRB1*03:01-DRB3*02:02, sharing the DRB1*03:01, had opposite associations (HR = 0.73 and 1.44, P = 0.04 and 0.019, respectively), indicating a role of DRB3. Meanwhile, DRB1*12:01-DRB3*02:02 and DRB1*01:03 alone were found to associate with progression (HR = 2.6 and 2.32, P = 0.018 and 0.039, respectively). Fourth, through enumerating all heterodimers, it was found that both DQ and DP could exhibit associations with disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that HLAII polymorphisms influence progression from islet autoimmunity to T1D among at-risk subjects with islet autoantibodies.

Evidence for C-peptide as a Validated Surrogate to Predict Clinical Benefits in Trials of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune disease in which destruction of pancreatic beta cells causes life-threatening metabolic dysregulation. Numerous approaches are envisioned for new therapies, but limitations of current clinical outcome measures are significant disincentives to development efforts. C-peptide, a direct byproduct of proinsulin processing, is a quantitative biomarker of beta cell function that is not cleared by the liver and can be measured in the peripheral blood. Studies of quantitative measures of beta cell function have established a predictive relationship between stimulated C-peptide as a measure of beta cell function and clinical benefits. C-peptide levels at diagnosis are often high enough to afford glycemic control benefits associated with protection from end-organ complications of diabetes, and even lower levels offer protection from severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes, as observed in large prospective cohort studies and interventional trials of islet transplantation. These observations support consideration of C-peptide not just as a biomarker of beta cell function, but also as a specific, sensitive, feasible, and clinically meaningful outcome defining beta cell preservation or restoration for clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies. Regulatory acceptance of C-peptide as a validated surrogate for demonstration of efficacy would greatly facilitate development of disease-modifying therapies for type 1 diabetes.

Chronic kidney disease in type 1 diabetes: translation of novel type 2 diabetes therapeutics to individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Current management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in type 1 diabetes centres on glycaemic control, renin-angiotensin system inhibition and optimisation of risk factors including blood pressure, lipids and body weight. While these therapeutic approaches have significantly improved outcomes among people with type 1 diabetes and CKD, this population remains at substantial elevated risk for adverse kidney and cardiovascular events, with limited improvements over the last few decades. The significant burden of CKD and CVD in type 1 diabetes populations highlights the need to identify novel therapies with the potential for heart and kidney protection. Over the last decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have emerged as potent kidney-protective and/or cardioprotective agents in type 2 diabetes. The consistent, substantial kidney and cardiovascular benefits of these agents has led to their incorporation into professional guidelines as foundational care for type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, introduction of these agents into clinical practice has been accompanied by a shift in the focus of diabetes care from a 'glucose-centric' to a 'cardiorenal risk-centric' approach. In this review, we evaluate the potential translation of novel type 2 diabetes therapeutics to individuals with type 1 diabetes with the lens of preventing the development and progression of CKD.

Rationale and design of a randomised phase III registration trial investigating finerenone in participants with type 1 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: The FINE-ONE trial.

AIMS: Despite guideline-recommended treatments, including renin angiotensin system inhibition, up to 40 % of individuals with type 1 diabetes develop chronic kidney disease (CKD) putting them at risk of kidney failure. Finerenone is approved to reduce the risk of kidney failure in individuals with type 2 diabetes. We postulate that finerenone will demonstrate benefits on kidney outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: FINE-ONE (NCT05901831) is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III trial of 7.5 months' duration in ∼220 adults with type 1 diabetes, urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) of ≥ 200-< 5000 mg/g (≥ 22.6-< 565 mg/mmol) and eGFR of ≥ 25-< 90 ml/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: The primary endpoint is relative change in UACR from baseline over 6 months. UACR is used as a bridging biomarker (BB), since the treatment effect of finerenone on UACR was associated with its efficacy on kidney outcomes in the type 2 diabetes trials. Based on regulatory authority feedback, UACR can be used as a BB for kidney outcomes to support registration of finerenone in type 1 diabetes, provided necessary criteria are met. Secondary outcomes include incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events, treatment-emergent serious adverse events and hyperkalaemia. CONCLUSIONS: FINE-ONE will evaluate the efficacy and safety of finerenone in type 1 diabetes and CKD. Finerenone could become the first registered treatment for CKD associated with type 1 diabetes in almost 30 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05901831.

Phenotypes Associated With Zones Defined by Area Under the Curve Glucose and C-peptide in a Population With Islet Autoantibodies.

OBJECTIVE: Metabolic zones were developed to characterize heterogeneity of individuals with islet autoantibodies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Baseline 2-h oral glucose tolerance test data from 6,620 TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study (TNPTP) autoantibody-positive participants (relatives of individuals with type 1 diabetes) were used to form 25 zones from five area under the curve glucose (AUCGLU) rows and five area under the curve C-peptide (AUCPEP) columns. Zone phenotypes were developed from demographic, metabolic, autoantibody, HLA, and risk data. RESULTS: As AUCGLU increased, changes of glucose and C-peptide response curves (from mean glucose and mean C-peptide values at 30, 60, 90, and 120 min) were similar within the five AUCPEP columns. Among the zones, 5-year risk for type 1 diabetes was highly correlated with islet antigen 2 antibody prevalence (r = 0.96, P < 0.001). Disease risk decreased markedly in the highest AUCGLU row as AUCPEP increased (0.88-0.41; P < 0.001 from lowest AUCPEP column to highest AUCPEP column). AUCGLU correlated appreciably less with Index60 (an indicator of insulin secretion) in the highest AUCPEP column (r = 0.33) than in other columns (r ≥ 0.78). AUCGLU was positively related to "fasting glucose × fasting insulin" and to "fasting glucose × fasting C-peptide" (indicators of insulin resistance) before and after adjustments for Index60 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Phenotypes of 25 zones formed from AUCGLU and AUCPEP were used to gain insights into type 1 diabetes heterogeneity. Zones were used to examine GCRC changes with increasing AUCGLU, associations between risk and autoantibody prevalence, the dependence of glucose as a predictor of risk according to C-peptide, and glucose heterogeneity from contributions of insulin secretion and insulin resistance.

Abatacept for Delay of Type 1 Diabetes Progression in Stage 1 Relatives at Risk: A Randomized, Double-Masked, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies showed that inhibiting lymphocyte costimulation reduces declining ß-cell function in individuals newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. We tested whether abatacept would delay or prevent progression of type 1 diabetes from normal glucose tolerance (NGT) to abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT) or to diabetes and the effects of treatment on immune and metabolic responses. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked trial of abatacept in antibody-positive participants with NGT who received monthly abatacept/placebo infusions for 12 months. The end point was AGT or diabetes, assessed by oral glucose tolerance tests. RESULTS: A total of 101 participants received abatacept and 111 placebo. Of these, 81 (35 abatacept and 46 placebo) met the end point of AGT or type 1 diabetes diagnosis (hazard ratio 0.702; 95% CI 0.452, 1.09; P = 0.11) The C-peptide responses to oral glucose tolerance tests were higher in the abatacept arm (P < 0.03). Abatacept reduced the frequency of inducible T-cell costimulatory (ICOS)+ PD1+ T-follicular helper (Tfh) cells during treatment (P < 0.0001), increased naive CD4+ T cells, and also reduced the frequency of CD4+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) from the baseline (P = 0.0067). Twelve months after treatment, the frequency of ICOS+ Tfh, naive CD4+ T cells, and Tregs returned to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Although abatacept treatment for 1 year did not significantly delay progression to glucose intolerance in at-risk individuals, it impacted immune cell subsets and preserved insulin secretion, suggesting that costimulation blockade may modify progression of type 1 diabetes.

The effect of age on longitudinal measures of beta cell function and insulin sensitivity during the progression of early stage type 1 diabetes.

AIM/HYPOTHESIS: The risk of progressing from autoantibody positivity to type 1 diabetes is inversely related to age. Separately, whether age influences patterns of C-peptide loss or changes in insulin sensitivity in autoantibody-positive individuals who progress to stage 3 type 1 diabetes is unclear. METHODS: Beta cell function and insulin sensitivity were determined by modelling of OGTTs performed in 658 autoantibody-positive participants followed longitudinally in the Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1). In this secondary analysis of DPT-1 data, time trajectories of beta cell function and insulin sensitivity were analysed in participants who progressed to type 1 diabetes (progressors) to address the impact of age on patterns of metabolic progression to diabetes. RESULTS: Among the entire DPT-1 cohort, the highest discriminant age for type 1 diabetes risk was 14 years, with participants aged <14 years being twice as likely to progress to type 1 diabetes as those aged ≥14 years. At study entry, beta cell glucose sensitivity was impaired to a similar extent in progressors aged <14 years and progressors aged ≥14 years. From study entry to stage 3 type 1 diabetes onset, beta cell glucose sensitivity and insulin sensitivity declined in both progressor groups. However, there were no significant differences in the yearly rate of decline in either glucose sensitivity (-13.7 [21.2] vs -11.9 [21.5] pmol min-1 m-2 [mmol/l]-1, median [IQR], p=0.52) or insulin sensitivity (-22 [37] vs -14 [40] ml min-1 m-2, median [IQR], p=0.07) between progressors aged <14 years and progressors aged ≥14 years. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our data indicate that during progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes, rates of change in declining glucose and insulin sensitivity are not significantly different between progressors aged <14 years and progressors aged ≥14 years. These data suggest there is a predictable course of declining metabolic function during the progression to type 1 diabetes that is not influenced by age.

Persistence of ß-Cell Responsiveness for Over Two Years in Autoantibody-Positive Children With Marked Metabolic Impairment at Screening.

OBJECTIVE: 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 ß-cell responsiveness in nonprogressors.

The Transition From a Compensatory Increase to a Decrease in C-peptide During the Progression to Type 1 Diabetes and Its Relation to Risk.

OBJECTIVE: To define the relationship between glucose and C-peptide during the progression to type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We longitudinally studied glucose and C-peptide response curves (GCRCs), area under curve (AUC) for glucose, and AUC C-peptide from oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs), and Index60 (which integrates OGTT glucose and C-peptide values) in Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) (n = 72) and TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study (TNPTP) (n = 82) participants who had OGTTs at baseline and follow-up time points before diagnosis. RESULTS: Similar evolutions of GCRC configurations were evident between DPT-1 and TNPTP from baseline to 0.5 years prediagnosis. Whereas AUC glucose increased throughout from baseline to 0.5 years prediagnosis, AUC C-peptide increased from baseline until 1.5 years prediagnosis (DPT-1, P = 0.004; TNPTP, P = 0.012) and then decreased from 1.5 to 0.5 years prediagnosis (DPT-1, P = 0.017; TNPTP, P = 0.093). This change was mostly attributable to change in the late AUC C-peptide response (i.e., 60- to 120-min AUC C-peptide). Median Index60 values of DPT-1 (1.44) and TNPTP (1.05) progressors to T1D 1.5 years prediagnosis (time of transition from increasing to decreasing AUC C-peptide) were used as thresholds to identify individuals at high risk for T1D in the full cohort at baseline (5-year risk of 0.75-0.88 for those above thresholds). CONCLUSIONS: A transition from an increase to a decrease in AUC C-peptide ∼1.5 years prediagnosis was validated in two independent cohorts. The median Index60 value at that time point can be used as a pathophysiologic-based threshold for identifying individuals at high risk for T1D.

COVID-19 and metabolic disease: mechanisms and clinical management.

Up to 50% of the people who have died from COVID-19 had metabolic and vascular disorders. Notably, there are many direct links between COVID-19 and the metabolic and endocrine systems. Thus, not only are patients with metabolic dysfunction (eg, obesity, hypertension, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and diabetes) at an increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 but also infection with SARS-CoV-2 might lead to new-onset diabetes or aggravation of pre-existing metabolic disorders. In this Review, we provide an update on the mechanisms of how metabolic and endocrine disorders might predispose patients to develop severe COVID-19. Additionally, we update the practical recommendations and management of patients with COVID-19 and post-pandemic. Furthermore, we summarise new treatment options for patients with both COVID-19 and diabetes, and highlight current challenges in clinical management.

The Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, behavioral considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management, and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that health care professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors.

The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycaemia, behavioural considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that healthcare professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors. Graphical abstract.

Dual-hormone artificial pancreas for management of type 1 diabetes: Recent progress and future directions.

Over the last few years, technological advances have led to tremendous improvement in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Artificial pancreas systems have been shown to improve glucose control compared with conventional insulin pump therapy. However, clinically significant hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes still occur with the artificial pancreas. Postprandial glucose excursions and exercise-induced hypoglycemia represent major hurdles in improving glucose control and glucose variability in many patients with T1D. In this regard, dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems delivering other hormones in addition to insulin (glucagon or amylin) may better reproduce the physiology of the endocrine pancreas and have been suggested as an alternative tool to overcome these limitations in clinical practice. In addition, novel ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs with a more physiological time-action profile are currently under investigation for use in artificial pancreas devices, aiming to address the unmet need for further improvements in postprandial glucose control. This review article aims to discuss the current progress and future outlook in the development of novel ultra-rapid insulin analogs and dual-hormone closed-loop systems, which offer the next steps to fully closing the loop in the artificial pancreas.

Novel therapies with precision mechanisms for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the greatest health crises of our time and its prevalence is projected to increase by >50% globally by 2045. Currently, 10 classes of drugs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of T2DM. Drugs in development for T2DM must show meaningful reductions in glycaemic parameters as well as cardiovascular safety. Results from an increasing number of cardiovascular outcome trials using modern T2DM therapeutics have shown a reduced risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Hence, guidelines have become increasingly evidence based and more patient centred, focusing on reaching individualized glycaemic goals while optimizing safety, non-glycaemic benefits and the prevention of complications. The bar has been raised for novel therapies under development for T2DM as they are now expected to achieve these aims and possibly even treat concurrent comorbidities. Indeed, the pharmaceutical pipeline for T2DM is fertile. Drugs that augment insulin sensitivity, stimulate insulin secretion or the incretin axis, or suppress hepatic glucose production are active in more than 7,000 global trials using new mechanisms of action. Our collective goal of being able to truly personalize medicine for T2DM has never been closer at hand.