Felton Jamie L, Griffin Kurt J, Oram Richard A, Speake Cate, Long S Alice, Onengut-Gumuscu Suna, Rich Stephen S, Monaco Gabriela Sf, Evans-Molina Carmella, DiMeglio Linda A, Ismail Heba M, Steck Andrea K, Dabelea Dana, Johnson Randi K, Urazbayeva Marzhan, Gitelman Stephen, Wentworth John M, Redondo Maria J, Sims Emily K
medRxiv. 2023 Apr 17:2023.04.12.23288421. doi: 10.1101/2023.04.12.23288421.
Type 1 diabetes (T1D) results from immune-mediated destruction of insulin-producing beta cells. Efforts to prevent T1D have focused on modulating immune responses and supporting beta cell health; however, heterogeneity in disease progression and responses to therapies have made these efforts difficult to translate to clinical practice, highlighting the need for precision medicine approaches to T1D prevention.
To understand the current state of knowledge regarding precision approaches to T1D prevention, we performed a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials from the past 25 years testing disease-modifying therapies in T1D and/or identifying features linked to treatment response, analyzing bias using a Cochrane-risk-of-bias instrument.
We identified 75 manuscripts, 15 describing 11 prevention trials for individuals with increased risk for T1D, and 60 describing treatments aimed at preventing beta cell loss in individuals at disease onset. Seventeen agents tested, mostly immunotherapies, showed benefit compared to placebo (only two prior to T1D onset). Fifty-seven studies employed precision analyses to assess features linked to treatment response. Age, measures of beta cell function and immune phenotypes were most frequently tested. However, analyses were typically not prespecified, with inconsistent methods reporting, and tended to report positive findings.
While the quality of prevention and intervention trials was overall high, low quality of precision analyses made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions that inform clinical practice. Thus, prespecified precision analyses should be incorporated into the design of future studies and reported in full to facilitate precision medicine approaches to T1D prevention.
Type 1 diabetes (T1D) results from the destruction of insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, necessitating lifelong insulin dependence. T1D prevention remains an elusive goal, largely due to immense variability in disease progression. Agents tested to date in clinical trials work in a subset of individuals, highlighting the need for precision medicine approaches to prevention. We systematically reviewed clinical trials of disease-modifying therapy in T1D. While age, measures of beta cell function, and immune phenotypes were most commonly identified as factors that influenced treatment response, the overall quality of these studies was low. This review reveals an important need to proactively design clinical trials with well-defined analyses to ensure that results can be interpreted and applied to clinical practice.
1型糖尿病(T1D)是由免疫介导的胰岛素分泌β细胞破坏所致。预防T1D的努力主要集中在调节免疫反应和维持β细胞健康;然而,疾病进展和对治疗反应的异质性使得这些努力难以转化为临床实践,这凸显了采用精准医学方法预防T1D的必要性。
为了解T1D预防精准方法的当前知识状态,我们对过去25年中测试T1D疾病修饰疗法和/或识别与治疗反应相关特征的随机对照试验进行了系统评价,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具分析偏倚。
我们识别出75篇手稿,15篇描述了针对T1D风险增加个体的11项预防试验,60篇描述了旨在预防疾病发作个体β细胞丢失的治疗方法。所测试的17种药物(大多为免疫疗法)与安慰剂相比显示出益处(仅2种在T1D发作前)。57项研究采用精准分析来评估与治疗反应相关的特征。年龄、β细胞功能指标和免疫表型是最常测试的内容。然而,分析通常未预先设定,报告方法不一致,且倾向于报告阳性结果。
虽然预防和干预试验的质量总体较高,但精准分析的低质量使得难以得出可为临床实践提供信息的有意义结论。因此,预先设定的精准分析应纳入未来研究的设计中,并完整报告,以促进采用精准医学方法预防T1D。
1型糖尿病(T1D)是由胰腺中产生胰岛素的细胞被破坏引起的,导致终身依赖胰岛素。T1D预防仍然是一个难以实现的目标,主要是因为疾病进展存在巨大差异。迄今为止在临床试验中测试的药物仅在一部分个体中有效,这凸显了采用精准医学方法进行预防的必要性。我们系统评价了T1D疾病修饰疗法的临床试验。虽然年龄、β细胞功能指标和免疫表型最常被确定为影响治疗反应的因素,但这些研究的总体质量较低。本评价揭示了积极设计具有明确分析的临床试验的重要必要性,以确保结果能够被解读并应用于临床实践。