Exploring Perceptions of Biologic Therapies: A Qualitative Study Among Canadians Living with Severe Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic therapies have demonstrated benefits for individuals with severe asthma, including reduced daily symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, data describing patient perspectives on these treatments are limited. This study sought to understand the preferences and priorities of Canadians with severe asthma in the context of novel biologic treatment options. METHODS: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted among Canadians with severe asthma from July to August 2022. Purposeful sampling included individuals with and without biologic therapy experience. All participants described daily life with severe asthma, experiences and priorities related to asthma treatment and their impressions of biologics. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to explore patterns in the data. RESULTS: Among 18 individuals included, 10 were currently taking or had prior experience with biologic treatment for asthma. Those who had never been treated with biologics were unfamiliar with them, considering treatment, or believed that they may not be eligible. Four themes were developed to convey the perspectives of participants on biologics: (1) life-changing benefits, but not for all; (2) navigating barriers to being prescribed and remaining adherent to biologic treatments; (3) treatment administration preferences are not only about convenience; (4) concerns about safety and the unknown as a source of treatment hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the clinical benefits of biologics align with patient perceptions of achieving good asthma control. However, treatment gaps persist among individuals who do not experience a meaningful improvement in their asthma symptoms and those who face barriers accessing biologics. People with severe asthma attributed importance to greater availability of at-home treatment options, improved access to financial support to cover treatment costs and support to address safety concerns. This research provides insight into patient-based treatment priorities and preferences for biologics, which may help inform decision-making related to emerging therapies for severe asthma.

For people with severe asthma, biologics are a treatment option that can be taken in addition to their regular medication. In this study, we asked 18 Canadians with severe asthma about how having severe asthma affects their lives, their current and previous asthma treatments, and their views on biologics. Ten people in this study were currently taking or had previously taken biologics for severe asthma. We found that biologics can be life changing. Also, people with severe asthma can find it difficult to get on and stay on biologics. They would like financial and educational support when considering biologics and prefer to take biologics at home, if possible. This study helps us understand the priorities and preferences related to biologics of patients with severe asthma.

Comparing Preferences for Disease Profiles: A Discrete Choice Experiment from a US Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: There is increasing interest in expanding the elements of value to be considered when making health policy decisions. To help inform value frameworks, this study quantified preferences for disease attributes in a general public sample and examined which combination of attributes (disease profiles) are considered most important for research and treatment. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in a US general population sample, recruited through online consumer panels. Respondents were asked to select one of a set of health conditions they believed to be most important, characterized by attributes defined by a previous qualitative study: onset age; cause of disease; life expectancy; caregiver requirement; symptom burden (characterized by the Health Utilities Index with varying levels of ambulation independence, dexterity limitations, and degree of pain and discomfort); and disease prevalence. A fractional factorial DCE design was implemented using R, and 60 choice sets were generated (separated into blocks of 10 per participant). Data were analyzed using a mixed-logit regression model, and results used to assess the likelihood of preferring disease profiles. Based on individual attribute preferences, overall preferences for disease profiles, including a profile aligned with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), were compared. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of respondents (n = 537) were female, and 70.6% were aged 18-54 years. Attributes considered most important were those related to life expectancy (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88 [1.56-2.27] for a 50% reduction in remaining life expectancy vs no impact), and symptom burden (OR [95% CI] 1.84 [1.47-2.31] for severe vs mild burden). Greater importance was also found for pediatric onset, caregiver requirement, and diseases affecting more people. As an example of disease profile preferences, a DMD-like pediatric inherited disease with 50% reduction in life expectancy, extensive caregiver requirement, severe symptom burden, and 1:5000 prevalence had 2.37-fold higher odds of being selected as important versus an equivalent disease with adult onset and no life expectancy reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Of disease attributes included in this DCE, respondents valued higher prevalence of disease, life expectancy and symptom burden as most important for prioritizing research and treatment. Based on expressed attribute preferences, a case study of an inherited pediatric disease involving substantial reductions to length and quality of life and requiring caregiver support has relatively high odds of being identified as important compared to diseases reflecting differing attribute profiles. These findings can help inform expansions of value frameworks by identifying important attributes from the societal perspective.

Refining the Definition of Stage 1 Type 1 Diabetes: An Ontology-Driven Analysis of the Heterogeneity of Multiple Islet Autoimmunity.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes based on varying definitions of multiple islet autoantibody positivity (mIA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Type 1 Diabetes Intelligence (T1DI) is a combined prospective data set of children from Finland, Germany, Sweden, and the U.S. who have an increased genetic risk for type 1 diabetes. Analysis included 16,709 infants-toddlers enrolled by age 2.5 years and comparison between groups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Of 865 (5%) children with mIA, 537 (62%) progressed to type 1 diabetes. The 15-year cumulative incidence of diabetes varied from the most stringent definition (mIA/Persistent/2: two or more islet autoantibodies positive at the same visit with two or more antibodies persistent at next visit; 88% [95% CI 85-92%]) to the least stringent (mIA/Any: positivity for two islet autoantibodies without co-occurring positivity or persistence; 18% [5-40%]). Progression in mIA/Persistent/2 was significantly higher than all other groups (P < 0.0001). Intermediate stringency definitions showed intermediate risk and were significantly different than mIA/Any (P < 0.05); however, differences waned over the 2-year follow-up among those who did not subsequently reach higher stringency. Among mIA/Persistent/2 individuals with three autoantibodies, loss of one autoantibody by the 2-year follow-up was associated with accelerated progression. Age was significantly associated with time from seroconversion to mIA/Persistent/2 status and mIA to stage 3 type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The 15-year risk of progression to type 1 diabetes risk varies markedly from 18 to 88% based on the stringency of mIA definition. While initial categorization identifies highest-risk individuals, short-term follow-up over 2 years may help stratify evolving risk, especially for those with less stringent definitions of mIA.

CGM Metrics Identify Dysglycemic States in Participants From the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study.

OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters may identify individuals at risk for progression to overt type 1 diabetes. We aimed to determine whether CGM metrics provide additional insights into progression to clinical stage 3 type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred five relatives of individuals in type 1 diabetes probands (median age 16.8 years; 89% non-Hispanic White; 43.8% female) from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study underwent 7-day CGM assessments and oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) at 6-month intervals. The baseline data are reported here. Three groups were evaluated: individuals with 1) stage 2 type 1 diabetes (n = 42) with two or more diabetes-related autoantibodies and abnormal OGTT; 2) stage 1 type 1 diabetes (n = 53) with two or more diabetes-related autoantibodies and normal OGTT; and 3) negative test for all diabetes-related autoantibodies and normal OGTT (n = 10). RESULTS: Multiple CGM metrics were associated with progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes. Specifically, spending ≥5% time with glucose levels ≥140 mg/dL (P = 0.01), ≥8% time with glucose levels ≥140 mg/dL (P = 0.02), ≥5% time with glucose levels ≥160 mg/dL (P = 0.0001), and ≥8% time with glucose levels ≥160 mg/dL (P = 0.02) were all associated with progression to stage 3 disease. Stage 2 participants and those who progressed to stage 3 also exhibited higher mean daytime glucose values; spent more time with glucose values over 120, 140, and 160 mg/dL; and had greater variability. CONCLUSIONS: CGM could aid in the identification of individuals, including those with a normal OGTT, who are likely to rapidly progress to stage 3 type 1 diabetes.

Consortium-based approach to receiving an EMA qualification opinion on the use of islet autoantibodies as enrichment biomarkers in type 1 diabetes clinical studies.

The development of medical products that can delay or prevent progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes faces many challenges. Of note, optimising patient selection for type 1 diabetes prevention clinical trials is hindered by significant patient heterogeneity and a lack of characterisation of the time-varying probability of progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes in individuals positive for two or more islet autoantibodies. To meet these needs, the Critical Path Institute's Type 1 Diabetes Consortium was launched in 2017 as a pre-competitive public-private partnership between stakeholders from the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy groups, philanthropic organisations, clinical researchers, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. The Type 1 Diabetes Consortium acquired and aggregated data from three longitudinal observational studies, Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY), Diabetes Autoimmunity Study in the Young (DAISY) and TrialNet Pathway to Prevention (TN01), and used analysis subsets of these data to support the model-based qualification of islet autoantibodies as enrichment biomarkers for patient selection in type 1 diabetes prevention trials, including registration studies. The Type 1 Diabetes Consortium has now received a qualification opinion from the European Medicines Agency for the use of these biomarkers, a major success for the field of type 1 diabetes. This endorsement will improve product developers' ability to design clinical trials of agents intended to prevent or delay type 1 diabetes that are reduced in size and/or length, while being adequately powered.

Two-age islet-autoantibody screening for childhood type 1 diabetes: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early prediction of childhood type 1 diabetes reduces ketoacidosis at diagnosis and provides opportunities for disease prevention. However, only highly efficient approaches are likely to succeed in public health settings. We sought to identify efficient strategies for initial islet autoantibody screening in children younger than 15 years. METHODS: We harmonised data from five prospective cohorts from Finland (DIPP), Germany (BABYDIAB), Sweden (DiPiS), and the USA (DAISY and DEW-IT) into the Type 1 Diabetes Intelligence (T1DI) cohort. 24 662 children at high risk of diabetes enrolled before age 2 years were included and followed up for islet autoantibodies and diabetes until age 15 years, or type 1 diabetes onset, whichever occurred first. Islet autoantibodies measured included those against glutamic acid decarboxylase, insulinoma antigen 2, and insulin. Main outcomes were sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of detected islet autoantibodies, tested at one or two fixed ages, for diagnosis of clinical type 1 diabetes. FINDINGS: Of the 24 662 participants enrolled in the Type 1 Diabetes Intelligence cohort, 6722 total were followed up to age 15 years or until onset of type 1 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes developed by age 15 years in 672 children, but did not develop in 6050 children. Optimal screening ages for two measurements were 2 years and 6 years, yielding sensitivity of 82% (95% CI 79-86) and PPV of 79% (95% CI 75-80) for diabetes by age 15 years. Autoantibody positivity at the beginning of each test age was highly predictive of diagnosis in the subsequent 2-5·99 year or 6-15-year age intervals. Autoantibodies usually appeared before age 6 years even in children diagnosed with diabetes much later in childhood. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that initial screening for islet autoantibodies at two ages (2 years and 6 years) is sensitive and efficient for public health translation but might require adjustment by country on the basis of population-specific disease characteristics. FUNDING: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Progression of type 1 diabetes from latency to symptomatic disease is predicted by distinct autoimmune trajectories.

Development of islet autoimmunity precedes the onset of type 1 diabetes in children, however, the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily lead to manifest disease and the onset of clinical symptoms is hard to predict. Here we show, by longitudinal sampling of islet autoantibodies (IAb) to insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase and islet antigen-2 that disease progression follows distinct trajectories. Of the combined Type 1 Data Intelligence cohort of 24662 participants, 2172 individuals fulfill the criteria of two or more follow-up visits and IAb positivity at least once, with 652 progressing to type 1 diabetes during the 15 years course of the study. Our Continuous-Time Hidden Markov Models, that are developed to discover and visualize latent states based on the collected data and clinical characteristics of the patients, show that the health state of participants progresses from 11 distinct latent states as per three trajectories (TR1, TR2 and TR3), with associated 5-year cumulative diabetes-free survival of 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35% to 47%), 62% (95% CI, 57% to 67%), and 88% (95% CI, 85% to 91%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Age, sex, and HLA-DR status further refine the progression rates within trajectories, enabling clinically useful prediction of disease onset.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Navigating Evidentiary and Decision Uncertainty in Precision Oncology.

(1) Background: Precision oncology has the potential to improve patient health and wellbeing through targeted prevention and treatment. Owing to uncertain clinical and economic outcomes, reimbursement has been limited. The objective of this pan-Canadian qualitative study was to investigate barriers to precision oncology implementation from the perspectives of health system stakeholders. (2) Methods: We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with health technology decision makers (n = 14) and clinicians (n = 18) experienced with precision oncology. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Recruitment continued until two qualitative analysts reached agreement that thematic saturation was reached. (3) Results: While cautiously optimistic about the potential for enhanced therapeutic alignment, participants identified multiple decisional challenges under conditions of evidentiary uncertainty. Decision makers voiced concern over resource requirements alongside small benefitting patient populations and limited evidence supporting patient and health system impacts. Clinicians were comparatively tolerant of evidentiary uncertainty guiding clinical decision-making practices. Clinicians applied a broader definition of patient benefit, focusing on the ability to assist patients making informed clinical decisions. (4) Conclusions: Sustainable precision oncology must balance demand with evidence demonstrating benefit. We show that clinicians and decision makers vary in their tolerance for evolving knowledge, suggesting a need to establish evidentiary standards supporting precision oncology reimbursement decisions.

Adult-Onset Type 1 Diabetes: Current Understanding and Challenges.

Recent epidemiological data have shown that more than half of all new cases of type 1 diabetes occur in adults. Key genetic, immune, and metabolic differences exist between adult- and childhood-onset type 1 diabetes, many of which are not well understood. A substantial risk of misclassification of diabetes type can result. Notably, some adults with type 1 diabetes may not require insulin at diagnosis, their clinical disease can masquerade as type 2 diabetes, and the consequent misclassification may result in inappropriate treatment. In response to this important issue, JDRF convened a workshop of international experts in November 2019. Here, we summarize the current understanding and unanswered questions in the field based on those discussions, highlighting epidemiology and immunogenetic and metabolic characteristics of adult-onset type 1 diabetes as well as disease-associated comorbidities and psychosocial challenges. In adult-onset, as compared with childhood-onset, type 1 diabetes, HLA-associated risk is lower, with more protective genotypes and lower genetic risk scores; multiple diabetes-associated autoantibodies are decreased, though GADA remains dominant. Before diagnosis, those with autoantibodies progress more slowly, and at diagnosis, serum C-peptide is higher in adults than children, with ketoacidosis being less frequent. Tools to distinguish types of diabetes are discussed, including body phenotype, clinical course, family history, autoantibodies, comorbidities, and C-peptide. By providing this perspective, we aim to improve the management of adults presenting with type 1 diabetes.

Islet Autoimmunity and HLA Markers of Presymptomatic and Clinical Type 1 Diabetes: Joint Analyses of Prospective Cohort Studies in Finland, Germany, Sweden, and the U.S.

OBJECTIVE: To combine prospective cohort studies, by including HLA harmonization, and estimate risk of islet autoimmunity and progression to clinical diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: For prospective cohorts in Finland, Germany, Sweden, and the U.S., 24,662 children at increased genetic risk for development of islet autoantibodies and type 1 diabetes have been followed. Following harmonization, the outcomes were analyzed in 16,709 infants-toddlers enrolled by age 2.5 years. RESULTS: In the infant-toddler cohort, 1,413 (8.5%) developed at least one autoantibody confirmed at two or more consecutive visits (seroconversion), 865 (5%) developed multiple autoantibodies, and 655 (4%) progressed to diabetes. The 15-year cumulative incidence of diabetes varied in children with one, two, or three autoantibodies at seroconversion: 45% (95% CI 40-52), 85% (78-90), and 92% (85-97), respectively. Among those with a single autoantibody, status 2 years after seroconversion predicted diabetes risk: 12% (10-25) if reverting to autoantibody negative, 30% (20-40) if retaining a single autoantibody, and 82% (80-95) if developing multiple autoantibodies. HLA-DR-DQ affected the risk of confirmed seroconversion and progression to diabetes in children with stable single-autoantibody status. Their 15-year diabetes incidence for higher- versus lower-risk genotypes was 40% (28-50) vs. 12% (5-38). The rate of progression to diabetes was inversely related to age at development of multiple autoantibodies, ranging from 20% per year to 6% per year in children developing multipositivity in ≤2 years or >7.4 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The number of islet autoantibodies at seroconversion reliably predicts 15-year type 1 diabetes risk. In children retaining a single autoantibody, HLA-DR-DQ genotypes can further refine risk of progression.

The Women's Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence.

OBJECTIVE: Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. RESULTS: There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.

Neoepitopes in Type 1 Diabetes: Etiological Insights, Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets.

The mechanisms underlying type 1 diabetes (T1D) pathogenesis remain largely unknown. While autoantibodies to pancreatic beta-cell antigens are often the first biological response and thereby a useful biomarker for identifying individuals in early stages of T1D, their role in T1D pathogenesis is not well understood. Recognition of these antigenic targets by autoreactive T-cells plays a pathological role in T1D development. Recently, several beta-cell neoantigens have been described, indicating that both neoantigens and known T1D antigens escape central or peripheral tolerance. Several questions regarding the mechanisms by which tolerance is broken in T1D remain unanswered. Further delineating the timing and nature of antigenic responses could allow their use as biomarkers to improve staging, as targets for therapeutic intervention, and lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms leading to loss of tolerance. Multiple factors that contribute to cellular stress may result in the generation of beta-cell derived neoepitopes and contribute to autoimmunity. Understanding the cellular mechanisms that induce beta-cells to produce neoantigens has direct implications on development of therapies to intercept T1D disease progression. In this perspective, we will discuss evidence for the role of neoantigens in the pathogenesis of T1D, including antigenic responses and cellular mechanisms. We will additionally discuss the pathways leading to neoepitope formation and the cross talk between the immune system and the beta-cells in this regard. Ultimately, delineating the timing of neoepitope generation in T1D pathogenesis will determine their role as biomarkers as well as therapeutic targets.

A Triple Threat? The Role of Diet, Nutrition, and the Microbiota in T1D Pathogenesis.

In recent years the role of the intestinal microbiota in health and disease has come to the forefront of medical research. Alterations in the intestinal microbiota and several of its features have been linked to numerous diseases, including type 1 diabetes (T1D). To date, studies in animal models of T1D, as well as studies in human subjects, have linked several intestinal microbiota alterations with T1D pathogenesis. Features that are most often linked with T1D pathogenesis include decreased microbial diversity, the relative abundance of specific strains of individual microbes, and altered metabolite production. Alterations in these features as well as others have provided insight into T1D pathogenesis and shed light on the potential mechanism by which the microbiota plays a role in T1D pathogenesis, yet the underlying factors leading to these alterations remains unknown. One potential mechanism for alteration of the microbiota is through diet and nutrition. Previous studies have shown associations of diet with islet autoimmunity, but a direct contributing factor has yet to be identified. Diet, through introduction of antigens and alteration of the composition and function of the microbiota, may elicit the immune system to produce autoreactive responses that result in the destruction of the beta cells. Here, we review the evidence associating diet induced changes in the intestinal microbiota and their contribution to T1D pathogenesis. We further provide a roadmap for determining the effect of diet and other modifiable factors on the entire microbiota ecosystem, including its impact on both immune and beta cell function, as it relates to T1D. A greater understanding of the complex interactions between the intestinal microbiota and several interacting systems in the body (immune, intestinal integrity and function, metabolism, beta cell function, etc.) may provide scientifically rational approaches to prevent development of T1D and other childhood immune and allergic diseases and biomarkers to evaluate the efficacy of interventions.

Toward the diagnosis of rare childhood genetic diseases: what do parents value most?

Genomic testing is becoming routine for diagnosing rare childhood genetic disease. Evidence underlying sustainable implementation is limited, focusing on short-term endpoints such as diagnostic yield, unable to fully characterize patient and family valued outcomes. Although genomic testing is becoming widely available, evidentiary and outcomes uncertainty persist as key challenges for implementation. We examine whether the current evidence base reflects public tolerance for uncertainty for genomics to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. We conducted focus groups with general population parents in Vancouver, Canada, and Oxford, United Kingdom, to discuss expectations and concerns related to genomic testing to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. Applying a purposive sampling technique, recruitment continued until thematic saturation was reached. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Thirty-three parents participated across four focus groups. Participants valued causal diagnoses alongside management strategies to improve patient health and wellbeing. Further, participants valued expanding the evidence base to reduce evidentiary uncertainty while ensuring security of information. Willingness to pay out of pocket for testing reflected perceived familial health benefit. Diagnostic yield fails to fully capture valued outcomes, and efforts to resolve uncertainty better reflect public priorities. Evaluations of genomic testing that fully integrate valued endpoints are necessary to ensure consistency with best practices and public willingness to accept the uncertain familial benefit.

The Women's Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence.

Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field.We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.

Parent and Pediatrician Preferences for Type 1 Diabetes Screening in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to use a discrete-choice experiment methodology to understand the relative importance of the attributes of screening tests for type 1 diabetes among parents and pediatricians in the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Online surveys presented hypothetical screening test profiles from which respondents chose their preferred test profile. Survey attributes were based on likely screening test options and included the mode of administration, where and when the test was conducted, the type of education and monitoring available to lower the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and whether a treatment was available that would delay onset of insulin dependence. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit models. RESULTS: Parents placed the highest relative importance on monitoring programs that could reduce the risk of DKA to 1%, followed by treatment to delay onset of insulin dependence by 1 or 2 years, and, finally, avoiding a $50 out-of-pocket cost. Pediatricians placed equal importance on monitoring programs that reduced a patient's risk of DKA to 1% and on avoiding a $50 out-of-pocket cost for the screening test, followed by the option of a treatment to delay the onset of insulin dependence. The mode of administration and location and timing of the screening were much less important to parents and pediatricians. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and pediatricians preferred screening tests that were accompanied by education and monitoring plans to reduce the risk of DKA, had available treatment to delay type 1 diabetes, and had lower out-of-pocket costs.