Genotype-stratified treatment for monogenic insulin resistance: a systematic review

This is the final version. Available from Nature Research via the DOI in this record. Data availability: All data used in this review is available from publicly available and herein referenced sources. A list of included studies is provided in Supplementary Data 1. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Source data for the figures are available as Supplementary Data 2.BACKGROUND: Monogenic insulin resistance (IR) includes lipodystrophy and disorders of insulin signalling. We sought to assess the effects of interventions in monogenic IR, stratified by genetic aetiology. METHODS: Systematic review using PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase (1 January 1987 to 23 June 2021). Studies reporting individual-level effects of pharmacologic and/or surgical interventions in monogenic IR were eligible. Individual data were extracted and duplicates were removed. Outcomes were analysed for each gene and intervention, and in aggregate for partial, generalised and all lipodystrophy. RESULTS: 10 non-randomised experimental studies, 8 case series, and 23 case reports meet inclusion criteria, all rated as having moderate or serious risk of bias. Metreleptin use is associated with the lowering of triglycerides and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in all lipodystrophy (n = 111), partial (n = 71) and generalised lipodystrophy (n = 41), and in LMNA, PPARG, AGPAT2 or BSCL2 subgroups (n = 72,13,21 and 21 respectively). Body Mass Index (BMI) is lowered in partial and generalised lipodystrophy, and in LMNA or BSCL2, but not PPARG or AGPAT2 subgroups. Thiazolidinediones are associated with improved HbA1c and triglycerides in all lipodystrophy (n = 13), improved HbA1c in PPARG (n = 5), and improved triglycerides in LMNA (n = 7). In INSR-related IR, rhIGF-1, alone or with IGFBP3, is associated with improved HbA1c (n = 17). The small size or absence of other genotype-treatment combinations preclude firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence guiding genotype-specific treatment of monogenic IR is of low to very low quality. Metreleptin and Thiazolidinediones appear to improve metabolic markers in lipodystrophy, and rhIGF-1 appears to lower HbA1c in INSR-related IR. For other interventions, there is insufficient evidence to assess efficacy and risks in aggregated lipodystrophy or genetic subgroups.Wellcome TrustWellcome Trus

Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine

Abstract: Precision medicine is part of the logical evolution of contemporary evidence-based medicine that seeks to reduce errors and optimize outcomes when making medical decisions and health recommendations. Diabetes affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide, many of whom will develop life-threatening complications and die prematurely. Precision medicine can potentially address this enormous problem by accounting for heterogeneity in the etiology, clinical presentation and pathogenesis of common forms of diabetes and risks of complications. This second international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine summarizes the findings from a systematic evidence review across the key pillars of precision medicine (prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis) in four recognized forms of diabetes (monogenic, gestational, type 1, type 2). These reviews address key questions about the translation of precision medicine research into practice. Although not complete, owing to the vast literature on this topic, they revealed opportunities for the immediate or near-term clinical implementation of precision diabetes medicine; furthermore, we expose important gaps in knowledge, focusing on the need to obtain new clinically relevant evidence. Gaps include the need for common standards for clinical readiness, including consideration of cost-effectiveness, health equity, predictive accuracy, liability and accessibility. Key milestones are outlined for the broad clinical implementation of precision diabetes medicine. A systematic review of evidence, across the key pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, outlines milestones that need to be met to enable the broad clinical implementation of precision medicine in diabetes care

Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine

Precision medicine is part of the logical evolution of contemporary evidence-based medicine that seeks to reduce errors and optimize outcomes when making medical decisions and health recommendations. Diabetes affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide, many of whom will develop life-threatening complications and die prematurely. Precision medicine can potentially address this enormous problem by accounting for heterogeneity in the etiology, clinical presentation and pathogenesis of common forms of diabetes and risks of complications. This second international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine summarizes the findings from a systematic evidence review across the key pillars of precision medicine (prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis) in four recognized forms of diabetes (monogenic, gestational, type 1, type 2). These reviews address key questions about the translation of precision medicine research into practice. Although not complete, owing to the vast literature on this topic, they revealed opportunities for the immediate or near-term clinical implementation of precision diabetes medicine; furthermore, we expose important gaps in knowledge, focusing on the need to obtain new clinically relevant evidence. Gaps include the need for common standards for clinical readiness, including consideration of cost-effectiveness, health equity, predictive accuracy, liability and accessibility. Key milestones are outlined for the broad clinical implementation of precision diabetes medicine.</p

Islet autoantibodies as precision diagnostic tools to characterize heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes : a systematic review

Abstract: Background Islet autoantibodies form the foundation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis and staging, but heterogeneity exists in T1D development and presentation. We hypothesized that autoantibodies can identify heterogeneity before, at, and after T1D diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies.Methods We systematically reviewed PubMed and EMBASE databases (6/14/2022) assessing 10 years of original research examining relationships between autoantibodies and heterogeneity before, at, after diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies in individuals at-risk or within 1 year of T1D diagnosis. A critical appraisal checklist tool for cohort studies was modified and used for risk of bias assessment.Results Here we show that 152 studies that met extraction criteria most commonly characterized heterogeneity before diagnosis (91/152). Autoantibody type/target was most frequently examined, followed by autoantibody number. Recurring themes included correlations of autoantibody number, type, and titers with progression, differing phenotypes based on order of autoantibody seroconversion, and interactions with age and genetics. Only 44% specifically described autoantibody assay standardization program participation.Conclusions Current evidence most strongly supports the application of autoantibody features to more precisely define T1D before diagnosis. Our findings support continued use of pre-clinical staging paradigms based on autoantibody number and suggest that additional autoantibody features, particularly in relation to age and genetic risk, could offer more precise stratification. To improve reproducibility and applicability of autoantibody-based precision medicine in T1D, we propose a methods checklist for islet autoantibody-based manuscripts which includes use of precision medicine MeSH terms and participation in autoantibody standardization workshops. Islet autoantibodies are markers found in the blood when insulin-producing cells in the pancreas become damaged and can be used to predict future development of type 1 diabetes. We evaluated published literature to determine whether characteristics of islet antibodies (type, levels, numbers) could improve prediction and help understand differences in how individuals with type 1 diabetes respond to treatments. We found existing evidence shows that islet autoantibody type and number are most useful to predict disease progression before diagnosis. In addition, the age when islet autoantibodies first appear strongly influences rate of progression. These findings provide important information for patients and care providers on how islet autoantibodies can be used to understand future type 1 diabetes development and to identify individuals who have the potential to benefit from intervention or prevention therapy. Felton et al. conduct a systematic review to determine the utility of islet autoantibodies as biomarkers of type 1 diabetes heterogeneity. They find that islet autoantibodies are most likely to be useful for patient stratification prior to clinical diagnosis