Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Consensus Reports

Precision Medicine in Diabetes: A Consensus Report From the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

  1. Wendy K. Chung1,2,
  2. Karel Erion3,
  3. Jose C. Florez4,5,6,7,8,
  4. Andrew T. Hattersley9,
  5. Marie-France Hivert5,10,
  6. Christine G. Lee11,
  7. Mark I. McCarthy12,13,
  8. John J. Nolan14,
  9. Jill M. Norris15,
  10. Ewan R. Pearson16,
  11. Louis Philipson17,18,
  12. Allison T. McElvaine19,
  13. William T. Cefalu11,
  14. Stephen S. Rich20,21 and
  15. Paul W. Franks22,23⇑
  1. 1Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
  2. 2Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
  3. 3American Diabetes Association, Arlington, VA
  4. 4Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
  5. 5Diabetes Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
  6. 6Metabolism Program, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA
  7. 7Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA
  8. 8Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
  9. 9Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, U.K.
  10. 10Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA
  11. 11National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD
  12. 12Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
  13. 13Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
  14. 14School of Medicine, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
  15. 15Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
  16. 16Division of Population Health and Genomics, Ninewells Hospital and School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, U.K.
  17. 17Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
  18. 18Department of Pediatrics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
  19. 19Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
  20. 20Center for Public Health Genomics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
  21. 21Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
  22. 22Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Lund University, Malmo, Sweden
  23. 23Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
  1. Corresponding author: Paul W. Franks, paul.franks{at}med.lu.se
  1. S.S.R. and P.W.F contributed equally to this Consensus Report and are co-chairs of the Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative.

Diabetes Care 2020 Jul; 43(7): 1617-1635. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0022
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

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.

Rationale for Precision Medicine in Diabetes

The practice of medicine centers on the individual. From the beginning, the physician has examined the patient suffering from illness, ascertained his/her signs and symptoms, related them to the medical knowledge available at the time, recognized patterns that fit a certain category and, based on the practical wisdom accumulated via empirical trial and error, applied a given remedy that is best suited to the situation at hand. Thus, the concept of precision medicine, often defined as providing the right therapy for the right patient at the right time, is not novel. What has changed radically is our ability to characterize and understand human biological variation through 1) assessment of the genetic and metabolic state, 2) leveraging data to inform disease categories, and 3) science-guided preventive and treatment decisions tailored to specific pathological conditions. Coupling these with detailed information about lifestyle and environment, available through digital devices and technologies that collect those measures, as well as data abstracted from electronic medical records, present unparalleled opportunities to optimize diabetes medicine.

Diabetes mellitus is diagnosed by the presence of hyperglycemia that is higher than a threshold blood glucose concentration which predisposes to microvascular end-organ complications. However, hyperglycemia is the end product of numerous pathophysiological processes that often emerge over many years and converge on the inability of the pancreatic β-cells to secrete enough insulin to meet the demands of target tissues. In clinical practice, absolute insulin deficiency can be detected from the autoimmune destruction of β-cells in type 1 diabetes (T1D), which represents ∼10% of all diabetes cases. Making the diagnosis of T1D is critical for survival, given the therapeutic requirement of exogenous administration of insulin. However, less commonly, hyperglycemia might derive from an inherited or de novo loss of function in a single gene (e.g., monogenic diabetes, comprising 2–3% of all diabetes diagnosed in children or young adults). Diabetes can also appear after pancreatitis or organ transplantation, during pregnancy, or as a result of cystic fibrosis. Most individuals with diabetes, however, are likely to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D), which includes defects in one or (more often) multiple physiological pathways (e.g., β-cell insufficiency, fat accumulation or miscompartmentalization, inflammation, incretin resistance, dysfunctional insulin signaling).

Our modern capacity to comprehensively interrogate diverse axes of biology has facilitated the approach of studying an individual to infer general principles, from which a discrete treatment plan is selected. These axes include developmental/metabolic context, genomic variation, chromatin signals that mark genes as active or repressed in tissues, expressed transcripts, biomarkers of disease, and increased knowledge of lifestyle/environmental risk factors. Parallel advances in computational power and analytical methods required to appropriately interrogate “big data” are driving insights that may radically transform the practice of medicine. Yet, at this time, the individual physician often lacks the time and training needed to incorporate these insights into medical decision making. Thus, the translation of the rapidly accumulating new knowledge into practice requires careful evaluation and translational strategies involving specialist training, education, and policy considerations.

The failure to adequately understand the diverse molecular and environmental processes that underlie diabetes and our inability to identify the pathophysiological mechanisms that trigger diabetes in individual patients limit our ability to prevent and treat the disease. Public health strategies have struggled to slow the epidemic, even in countries with the greatest financial and scientific resources. Pharmacological therapies, comprising 12 different drug classes currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), may, at best, control blood glucose and modify disease course but do not provide a cure or result in the remission of disease. Moreover, these agents are sometimes prescribed based on nonmedical considerations (cost, side effects, patient preference, or comorbidities), which may overlook the biological mechanism. Thus, more people are developing diabetes worldwide and have disease progressing to complications, incurring a significant health care burden and cost.

There are, however, several reasons for hope. First, diabetes caused by single gene defects can be characterized and targeted therapies are particularly effective (1,2). Second, islet autoantibody biomarkers and genomic risk have clarified autoimmune diabetes from other forms of the disease (3,4), thereby facilitating immune intervention trials and preonset monitoring to reduce risk of severe complications and aiding in detection of environmental triggers (5). Third, multiple biomarkers and genetic variants have been shown to alter risk of T2D, revealing previously unsuspected biological pathways and providing new targets. Fourth, T2D has been shown to be a complex combination of multiple conditions and processes, defined by process-specific subgroups in which individuals with extreme burdens of risk in particular pathways reside and for whom a specific therapeutic approach may be optimal (6). Finally, the tools, resources, and data now exist to determine the biological and lifestyle/environmental predictors of drug response, as measured by a variety of clinical outcomes (7).

The Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative

The idea of precision diabetes medicine is gaining momentum, based upon the promise of reducing the enormous and growing burden of diabetes worldwide. To address this, the Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PMDI) was launched in 2018 by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), in partnership with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). The PMDI has partnered subsequently with other organizations (the U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [NIDDK] and JDRF).

The mandate of the PMDI is to establish consensus on the viability and potential implementation of precision medicine for the diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, and treatment of diabetes, through expert consultation, stakeholder engagement, and systematic evaluation of available evidence. This mandate is pursued in order to realize a future of longer, healthier lives for people with diabetes.

The PMDI is focused on assessing evidence, promoting research, providing education, and developing guidelines for the application of precision medicine in diabetes. The 2019 ADA Scientific Sessions (held in June 2019) sponsored a research symposium focused on precision medicine, followed by a PMDI stakeholder meeting (held in October 2019) that was attended by experts in areas germane to precision diabetes medicine from around the world. Future PMDI symposia will extend the themes of precision diabetes medicine during the 2020 ADA Scientific Sessions and EASD Annual Meeting. In the coming years, educational approaches to translate the science into practice will be the target of a series of postgraduate education symposia. A global clinical research network focused on precision diabetes medicine is also being planned, along with other education and information dissemination activities (see Fig. 1 for an overview of key objectives).

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

PMDI activities. PM, precision medicine; RFA, research funding announcement.

The purpose of the work underlying the ADA/EASD PMDI consensus reports, of which this is the first, is to define relevant terminology (Text Box 1) and review the current status of diagnostics and therapeutics (prevention and treatment) in diabetes, including key areas of opportunity and where further inquiry is needed (Text Boxes 2–4). Particular focus is placed on elucidating the etiological heterogeneity of diabetes, which involves a combination of approaches including contemporaneous measures of risk factors, biomarkers, and genomics, as well as lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. Monogenic diabetes is one of few areas where precision diabetes medicine has been proven feasible and is practiced (as discussed at a recent Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum; M.C. Riddle, personal communication). This first Consensus Report does not seek to address extensively the role of precision medicine in the complications of diabetes, which is a topic for future evaluation. In addition, we do not discuss diabetes digital device technology, as this is addressed in a joint ADA/EASD consensus report (8,9). A second PMDI consensus report will be published documenting the findings of a systematic evidence review, focusing on precision diagnostics and precision therapeutics (prevention and treatment).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Text Box 1

Definitions

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Text Box 2

Precision diagnostics: background, barriers to implementation, and research gaps

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Text Box 3

Precision prevention: background, barriers to implementation, and research gaps

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Text Box 4

Precision medicine approaches to treat diabetes: background, barriers to implementation, and research gaps

An Executive Oversight Committee, comprising representatives from the founding organizations, ADA (L.P.) and EASD (J.J.N.), and the two co-chairs of the initiative (P.W.F. and S.S.R.), provide PMDI governance. The Executive Oversight Committee is responsible for ensuring that the PMDI activities are executed. Leadership and direction of the PMDI are provided by members of the PMDI Steering Committee, currently composed of academic leaders in precision diabetes medicine from the U.S. (W.K.C., J.C.F., J.M.N.) and Europe (A.T.H., M.I.M., E.R.P.), a representative from NIDDK (C.G.L.), and the Executive Oversight Committee members (L.P., J.J.N., P.W.F., S.S.R.). The Steering Committee is responsible for providing guidance for PMDI activities and engages in developing precision diabetes medicine education, drafting consensus statements, and building interest/working groups to achieve its mission. The Executive Oversight Committee and the Steering Committee work closely together under the banner of the PMDI Task Force. Membership of the Steering Committee will expand to include experts from around the world and across multiple areas of expertise germane to the topic of precision diabetes medicine.

Work for this Consensus Report began at the October 2019 stakeholder meeting in Madrid. The meeting included presentations and roundtable discussions. At the conclusion of the meeting, a writing group meeting attended by the PMDI Task Force and stakeholders was held to determine what should be addressed in the Consensus Report. Following the meeting, consensus was reached by the PMDI Task Force through bimonthly calls and electronic communication. Relevant experts outside of the Task Force were asked to contribute sections as needed. The Consensus Report was then peer reviewed by experts in the field and by the clinical committees of the founding organizations. The report was then submitted to Diabetes Care and Diabetologia for simultaneous publication.

Precision Diabetes Medicine: What it is and What it is Not

Precision diabetes medicine refers to an approach to optimize the diagnosis, prediction, prevention, or treatment of diabetes by integrating multidimensional data, accounting for individual differences (Text Box 1). The major distinction from standard medical approaches is the use of complex data to characterize the individual’s health status, predisposition, prognosis, and likely treatment response. Precision medicine also focuses on identifying patients who, despite a diagnosis, do not require treatment (or require less than might conventionally be prescribed). These data may stem from traditional sources such as clinical records, as well as from emergent sources of “big data” such as individual medical records from very large cohorts of patients; geomobility patterns obtained from devices; behavioral monitors (e.g., actigraphy for exercise and sleep assessments); ingestible, subcutaneous, or wearable sensors (e.g., for blood glucose monitoring); and genomic and other ’omics data. Integration of patient preferences, patient-centered outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and shared decision making will guide how precision diabetes medicine is formulated and applied.

There are several terms sometimes used interchangeably with precision medicine, including “personalized medicine,” “individualized medicine,” and “stratified medicine.” The 2020 ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (ADA SOC) places considerable emphasis on the personalization of diabetes medicine, highlighting that “clinicians care for patients and not populations” (10) (p. S2). This reflects the appreciation of individual differences with respect to symptomatology, presentation, behaviors, preferences, social circumstances, response to treatment, comorbidities, or clinical course. For precision diabetes medicine to be effective, it must be tailored to the individual. Thus, the ADA SOC instructs the clinician to adapt guidelines to each patient’s characteristics, circumstances, and preferences, including the patient’s food security, housing, and financial stability. In the context of the PMDI, this is not considered to be precision medicine; rather, this final step in the process of translating knowledge into practice is personalized (or individualized) medicine. In contrast, precision (or stratified) medicine emphasizes tailoring diagnostics or therapeutics (prevention or treatment) to subgroups of populations sharing similar characteristics, thereby minimizing error and risk while maximizing efficacy. Included within precision diabetes medicine is the monitoring of disease progression using advanced technologies or considering how patient features affect the reliability of assays. The application of precision diabetes medicine may substantially reduce errors in diagnostic (Fig. 2), therapeutic (Fig. 3), and prognostic (Fig. 4) processes. For example, the interrogation of large sets of longitudinal clinical data could identify disease subtypes and match the patient to others with a similar disease profile; through knowledge of treatment efficacy and outcomes, more precise prognosis and optimization of therapies for this patient by concordance to similar subgroups would emerge (Text Box 1 and Figs. 3 and 4).

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

Precision diagnostics

Figure 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3

Precision therapeutics

Figure 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4

Precision prognostics

Precision Diagnostics

What are the Requirements for Precision Diagnosis?

Precision diagnostics (Text Box 2) employs methods to subclassify patients to enable the successful application of precision medicine approaches (Fig. 2). This will facilitate matching precise prevention strategies and treatments to individuals either at risk for or diagnosed with diabetes. Ideally, a precision diagnostic test should be 1) robust (high test-retest reliability within and between laboratories); 2) able to define a discrete subgroup giving insights into disease etiology, prognosis, and treatment response; 3) widely available; 4) easily performed with accepted norms for interpretation; 5) inexpensive (or at least cost-effective); and 6) approved by regulatory authorities.

Precision diagnosis can be conceptualized as a pathway that moves through stages, rather than as a single step. The diagnostic stages include assessing the:

  • • expected prevalence based on epidemiology, including age, or age at diagnosis of diabetes, sex, and ancestry,

  • •probable clinical diagnosis using clinical features and other data, and

  • • modification by diagnostic tests that are interpreted in the light of prevalence and diagnosis.

A diagnosis in precision medicine is a probability-based decision, typically made at a point in the natural history of a disease, reflecting neither an absolute truth nor a permanent state. Presenting the degree of uncertainty in a manner that is intuitive to the patient and practitioner is critical if the precision diagnosis is to be effective.

Precision Diagnosis in Clinical Practice

Interpreting HbA1c in Diagnosis and Monitoring

Data and outcomes from the widespread use of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), rather than blood glucose levels, for diagnosis has led to a precision approach for the diagnosis of diabetes. The level of HbA1c will depend on factors that impact hemoglobin and red cell stability as well as average glucose values (10). Genetic testing can reveal unsuspected variants that alter HbA1c. Thus, knowledge of the patient’s ancestry and specific genetic information can guide interpretation of assay results for diagnosis and the monitoring of blood glucose.

Diagnosing T1D Versus T2D

Currently, the most common step toward precision diagnosis that is made in clinical diabetes medicine is the classification of T1D versus T2D, the two most prevalent subcategories with different etiologies and different treatment requirements. Part of the diagnostic dilemma is that neither T1D nor T2D are monolithic entities and robust “gold standards” are not universally agreed. Diagnostic issues arise when expected clinical features are discordant from established norms (e.g., people diagnosed with diabetes who are young and have obesity, or old and slim, or who are a rare subtype in that clinical setting) (11). Islet autoantibody positivity varies by clinical setting (e.g., in people without diabetes, individuals diagnosed with probable T1D as children, individuals with clinical features of T2D), resulting in an altered prior probability of T1D that reflects the different prevalence in these diverse settings. The best diagnosis depends on integrating all diagnostic modalities, as demonstrated in predicting long term C-peptide negativity in individuals diagnosed with diabetes between 20 and 40 years of age, where an integrated model outperformed diagnosis based on clinical features, circulating antibodies, or genetics used in isolation (3). The frequency of misdiagnosis of T1D and T2D in middle-aged and elderly adults (11,12) suggests that precise diagnostic approaches are needed, especially as failure to recognize insulin-deficient states can be fatal.

Monogenic Diabetes

A Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum (M.C. Riddle, personal communication) has concluded recently that a monogenic diabetes diagnosis is closest to meeting all criteria for a perfect diagnostic test as it defines a discrete subgroup giving insights into etiology, prognosis, and treatment response (1,2). Most cases of monogenic diabetes remain misdiagnosed. Perhaps the best example of precision diabetes medicine is the excellent and long-lasting glycemic response to oral sulfonylureas in insulin-dependent infants diagnosed with neonatal diabetes caused by abnormalities in the β-cell potassium channel (13–17). In GCK-MODY (MODY2), it is established that patients do not require (18), or respond to, oral medication (19). Other MODY diagnoses (HNF1A [MODY3], HNF4A [MODY1] and ABCC8 [MODY12]) are acutely sensitive to the glucose-lowering effects of sulfonylureas (20–22); however, unless the diagnosis is precise, these therapeutic benefits are lost. With the clear benefits of precision diagnosis of monogenic diabetes, it is important to reduce barriers to its implementation. For example, the cost of performing molecular genetic testing is high and universal testing is not cost-effective. It is thus necessary to limit testing to those most likely to have a monogenic diagnosis. Moreover, identification protocols require prescreening based on clinical features (e.g., family history, age at onset, phenotype including syndromic features) and nongenetic testing (islet autoantibodies and C-peptide).

One approach for implementing precision medicine in the case of monogenic diabetes would be to:

  • • test all infants diagnosed with diabetes in the first 6 months of age, because >80% have a monogenic cause of neonatal diabetes;

  • • use a MODY calculator to identify those whose clinical features suggest a high likelihood of MODY (www.diabetesgenes.org/mody-probability-calculator/) (23);

  • • test individuals with pediatric diabetes when at least three islet autoantibodies are antibody negative (24).

The effective use of these pregenetic selection criteria should greatly improve the likelihood of correctly diagnosing monogenic diabetes without the burden of costly genetic screens. Although diagnostic molecular genetic testing utilizes robust analysis of germline DNA, which is virtually unchanged throughout life, there are still issues with its implementation. One issue is the incorrect interpretation of the genetic information, leading to inaccurate identification of causal mutations in both clinical practice and in the published research literature (25). Curation of pathogenic variants for monogenic diabetes is critical and is currently being addressed by international consortia. As a result of technological advances, multiple causes of monogenic diabetes can be tested for in a single next-generation sequencing test. This approach is generally advantageous as it does mean that syndromic monogenic diabetes is diagnosed genetically when the patient presents with isolated diabetes. This will allow other features to be examined and treated appropriately before clinical presentation. Examples of this are neonatal diabetes (2), HNF1B-MODY (MODY5) (26), WFS1 (Wolfram syndrome) (27), and mitochondrial diabetes (28). For these patients, the genetic diagnosis of diabetes will have implications far beyond the prognosis and care of diabetes, as the patient with certain types of monogenic diabetes will also be at high risk of developmental delay, neurological disease, developmental kidney disease, liver failure, deafness, and cardiomyopathy.

Diagnosing Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults

Latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) is not currently recognized by the ADA as a formal subtype of diabetes. Nevertheless, LADA reveals some of the difficulties in diabetes subtyping. It was shown that the presence of GAD autoantibodies in patients with T2D was associated with progression to early insulin therapy (29); yet, controversy remains as to whether LADA is a discrete subtype, a milder form of T1D, or a mixture of some patients with T1D and others with T2D. The uncertainty is increased by variation in the diagnostic criteria, with initial treatment based upon physician preference as well as the patient’s presentation (30). In addition, among those with GAD autoantibodies, the phenotype varies with different autoantibody levels (31).

Subcategories of Common Forms of Diabetes

The subcategorization of T1D or T2D may not always be the optimal approach for precision diabetes diagnosis or therapy. Nevertheless, the ability to delineate T1D or T2D using nontraditional data and approaches may lead to improvements in prevention or treatment of the disease, including diabetes subclassifications beyond T1D or T2D.

Subcategories in T1D.

The age at which the initial islet autoantibody appears and the type of autoantibody (e.g., which of the four primary antibodies among islet cell autoantigen 512/islet antigen 2 [ICA512/IA-2], insulin, GAD, zinc transporter 8 [ZnT8]) may be important in defining etiological subtypes of T1D (32). Data supporting this potential subcategory are based upon those diagnosed in the first 10 years of life and in predominantly white European populations. The relevance to other ethnic groups and those diagnosed later in life is uncertain.

The genetic variants accounting for the majority of risk of T1D are now known, and the sensitivity and specificity of T1D genetic risk scores (T1D-GRS) both exceed 80% (5,33–35); however, a high T1D-GRS will have low positive predictive value in populations with a typically low prevalence. A T1D-GRS may prove most useful when integrated with clinical features and islet autoantibodies (3,4). There is variation in the genetic susceptibility with age at diagnosis but, at present, genetics is not suggested as an approach for defining subtypes of T1D.

There is strong evidence for enrichment of immune cell types that are associated with genetic risk of T1D, particularly T cells (CD4+ and CD8+) and B cells (CD19+). However, at present, there is no immune-based test sufficiently reproducible and robust that it can be used diagnostically for T1D.

Persistent endogenous β-cell function in T1D is associated with greater potential for improved glycemic control and reduced complications (36). A stimulated C-peptide measurement represents a candidate for defining subcategories of T1D with different treatment aims. C-peptide levels exponentially fall in the “honeymoon period” after T1D diagnosis (37) but have been shown to be stable 7 years after diagnosis (38). Persistent C-peptide is associated with a later age of diagnosis, although there are few data to predict those likely to maintain high levels of C-peptide.

Subcategories in T2D.

Family history of T2D, as a surrogate for precise genetic evaluation, fails to meet many of the criteria of a robust test as any assessment changes over time and depends on the relatives selected for reporting the “family.” The value of a family history may be greatest in monogenic diabetes, in which a pedigree will often demonstrate a pattern of inheritance consistent with a single gene disorder and a consistent phenotype.

T2D treatment response and disease progression can be predicted from continuous clinical features with specific models. These models appear to perform better than dividing into cluster-based subgroups (7). An advantage of using clinical features is that they are widely available and easily obtained (e.g., sex, BMI, HbA1c). However, they are limited by the fact that clinical features may vary over time and with the natural history of the disease. Incorporation of longitudinal change with treatment response could be a strength as the model’s prediction would change in concert with changes in the phenotype of the patient.

Recent research has attempted to define subcategories of T2D (and T1D) based on cluster analysis at diagnosis to provide insights into likely progression, risk of complications, and treatment response (39,40). Barriers facing this and other approaches include collection of data that are not routinely obtained (e.g., a fasting C-peptide at the time of diagnosis, with considerable variation in results between laboratories [41]) and the change in biomarkers over time that are dependent on disease course or its treatment. Genetic data have been used to define T2D subcategories by clustering genetic variants that associate with physiological traits and which are correlated with clinical outcomes (6). At this time, the available genetic data for T2D and the clustering does not have sufficient predictive accuracy to replace existing delineative approaches. None of the methods described above are established for subclassification of T2D in clinical practice; nevertheless, it is true that in a minority of patients, their specific type of diabetes may be adequately characterized using genetic clustering (42,43).

Precision Therapeutics

Accurate diagnosis is necessary for successful precision therapy, whether for prevention or treatment (Fig. 3). This is true where subgroup(s) of the population must be defined to determine which targeted interventions will be applied, as well as for determination of treatment outcome. In monogenic diabetes, there are no currently known options for prevention. In T1D, precision prevention currently involves mainly the optimization of monitoring methods (Text Box 3), thereby facilitating timely early detection, preventing early complications and allowing appropriate treatment. In contrast, T2D has many avenues for prevention; thus, the possibilities for precision approaches, possibly through tailoring of lifestyle (e.g., diet), are broad in T2D.

Precision Prevention in Diabetes (Text Box 3)

Type 1 Diabetes

T1D is characterized by damage, impairment, and eventual destruction of the insulin-producing pancreatic β-cells, thought to be the result of an autoimmune process. T1D progression has been grouped into discrete “stages” (44). Stage 1 is defined by the presence of ≥2 islet autoantibodies, with normal blood glucose; stage 2 is defined by the presence of ≥2 islet autoantibodies with elevation of blood glucose, signaling the functional impairment of the β-cells; and stage 3 is characterized by symptoms of dysglycemia, such as polyuria or diabetic ketoacidosis, although not all symptoms need be present. A clinical diagnosis of T1D typically is not given until stage 3. T1D is nearly inevitable once ≥2 islet autoantibodies appear, particularly in those of younger age, with a lifetime diabetes risk approaching 100% (45,46). Approximately half of the risk of T1D is due to genetic factors, with over 30% of the genetic risk attributable to genes of the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) complex but also including more than 50 non-HLA loci (35). Unknown environmental factors are thought to trigger the autoimmune process that results in initial β-cell damage and progression toward symptomatic T1D (47).

Primary prevention trials in genetically susceptible individuals who have not yet developed autoantibodies (i.e., pre-stage 1) and secondary prevention trials in children with stages 1 and 2 have been conducted (48) using dietary interventions and immune-targeting approaches. Dietary manipulation studies have been largely unsuccessful in reducing islet autoimmunity (49–51) or T1D (52). Previous intervention studies among individuals at stage 1 or stage 2 have been unable to slow, halt, or reverse the destruction of insulin-producing β-cells. Of nine completed secondary prevention trials (53–60), only one (using an anti-CD3 antibody) has shown a slight delay in progression to T1D (61).

Most prevention trials in T1D have not been effective, partially because the unique T1D genetic risk profile of the individual and their unique response to the preventive agent (immune therapy or dietary intervention) have not been considered. For example, the inflammatory response to infection with enteroviruses implicated in the onset of T1D has been shown to be genetically mediated (62) and diet has had different effects on development of autoimmunity and progression to T1D (63) dependent on genetic risk. Several studies have suggested that susceptibility to islet autoimmunity and progression to T1D may be related to the ability to adequately use vitamin D, as higher cord blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D was associated with a decreased risk of T1D, but only in children who were homozygous for a vitamin D receptor gene (VDR) variant (64). Risk of islet autoimmunity was observed with reduced dietary intake of the n-3 fatty acid α-linolenic acid, but only in those with a specific genotype in the fatty acid desaturase gene (FADS) cluster (65). Thus, without considering the unique genetic profiles of children, dietary supplementation may not be successful, arguing for an appropriately validated precision approach.

Type 2 Diabetes

The emergence of T2D as a global public health crisis during recent decades has motivated numerous large randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of pharmacological or lifestyle interventions for prevention. An emphasis has been placed on intervening in people with “prediabetes,” defined as a person with levels of fasting blood glucose, 2-h blood glucose, or HbA1c that are chronically elevated but below the diagnostic thresholds for diabetes. Although prediabetes is a major risk factor for T2D and other diseases (66), intervening in everyone with prediabetes may not be cost-effective (67). Aggressive precision prevention in those with relevant risk factors is discussed in the current ADA SOC (68). Youth with prediabetes should be the focus of preventive interventions, especially those with overweight or obesity and who have one or more additional risk factors (e.g., maternal history or exposure to gestational diabetes mellitus [GDM], a positive family history of diabetes in first- or second-degree relatives, signs of insulin resistance, or specific high-risk ancestry).

Multiple interventions in adults with T2D have been evaluated for risk reduction and prevention, both in the short and the long term. A recent systematic review (69) reported that after active interventions lasting from 6 months to >6 years, relative risk reduction achieved from lifestyle interventions (39%) was similar to that attained from use of drugs (36%); however, only lifestyle interventions had a sustained reduction in risk once the intervention period had ended. Analysis of the postintervention follow-up period (∼7 years) revealed a risk reduction of 28% with lifestyle modification compared with a nonsignificant risk reduction of 5% from drug interventions.

Most lifestyle intervention programs use standardized approaches designed to change diet and exercise habits for reducing body weight. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) evaluated the efficacy of lifestyle intervention and metformin therapy, compared with standard of care and placebo (control), for delay or prevention of diabetes in those with impaired glucose regulation at baseline. Although the reductions in diabetes risk from lifestyle (58% reduction) and metformin (31% reduction) compared with the control intervention were impressive (70), there was considerable variation across the study population (71), with many participants developing T2D during the active intervention period (the first 2.8 years of the trial). Thus, the DPP lifestyle intervention did not truly “prevent” diabetes. Indeed, in the decade after randomization, during which participants were offered lifestyle reinforcement semiannually, the average duration before disease onset was ∼3 years (72). Those participants in the DPP who progressed most rapidly were those who lost the least weight in the early stages of the intervention (73), with genetic variants representing significant predictors of peak weight loss and weight loss maintenance (74). Results from the DPP and other large prevention trials suggest that a “one-size-fits-all” lifestyle intervention strategy will not be efficacious for everyone, particularly if it cannot be sustained, strengthening the case for precision lifestyle interventions in T2D prevention.

Although precision diabetes medicine is much more than genetics, the majority of relevant research has focused on evaluating the role of genetic variants in precision prevention. Large epidemiological studies (75) and intervention trials (76,77) strongly suggest that standard approaches for lifestyle modification are equally efficacious in preventing diabetes regardless of the underlying genetic risk. This contrasts with the extensive epidemiological evidence suggesting that the relationship of lifestyle with obesity is dependent on genetic risk (78–81); however, with few exceptions (e.g., [74]), analyses in large randomized controlled trials have failed to show that these same genetic variants modify weight loss in response to lifestyle intervention (82). It is also important to recognize that knowledge of increased genetic risk for diabetes may not motivate improvements in lifestyle behaviors. Indeed, knowledge of increased genetic risk for diabetes may decrease motivation to modify behavior in genetic fatalists (83).

Diet recommendations optimized to the individual have been shown to reduce postprandial glycemic excursions to a greater extent than standard approaches in healthy individuals (84). Meal compositions that induce the most favorable glycemic profiles have been guided by models derived from an individual’s biological data (e.g., microbiome, genome, and metabolome), information on lifestyle factors (e.g., sleep and exercise), and postprandial glycemia following the consumption of a series of standardized meals. Although these studies indicate that personalized diet plans may help minimize postprandial glycemic excursions, no studies have reported the long-term impact of adhering to personalized diets on glycemic control.

Of the 12 approved classes of diabetes drugs, many having been assessed for efficacy in prevention. Overall, drugs that enhance insulin action have proven more effective in diabetes prevention than those that increase insulin secretion. Some of the variability in the diabetes-reducing effect of metformin in the DPP has been associated with variation in the SLC47A1 gene that encodes the multidrug and toxin extrusion 1 (MATE1) transporter protein (85). In the DPP Outcomes Study, the effects of lifestyle, metformin, and placebo interventions on weight reduction during the 6–15 years that followed the end of the randomized intervention phase were assessed (86). As a percentage of baseline weight, those assigned to metformin maintained an average weight loss of 6.2% compared with the lifestyle intervention group, which maintained a weight loss of 3.7%, and the placebo group, which maintained a weight loss of 2.8%. In the subgroup of DPP participants who lost <5% baseline weight at 1 year post-randomization (poor responders), body weight during the following 14 years remained essentially unchanged, whether receiving metformin or placebo interventions. In contrast, those participants in the lifestyle intervention group who lost <5% baseline weight gained and sustained ∼2 kg excess body weight in the years that followed. These findings reveal a subgroup of DPP participants in whom lifestyle intervention led to weight gain, which presents a potential avenue for stratified intervention, where individuals who are unlikely to respond well to lifestyle modification might be better served by other therapeutic approaches.

Precision Treatment (Text Box 4)

Once diabetes develops, a variety of therapeutic steps may be clinically indicated to improve disease management. These steps include:

  • • glucose monitoring

  • • patient education and lifestyle intervention (87)

  • • surgery

  • • drug treatments to lower HbA1c

  • • drug treatments to lower cardiovascular risk (e.g., statins, antihypertensives)

  • • drug treatments targeting specific complications (e.g., ACE inhibitors/angio‐tensin II receptor blockers [ARBs] and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors for proteinuric kidney disease, fibrates for retinopathy, atypical analgesics for painful neuropathy, and statins and antihypertensives for cardiovascular disease)

For each of these treatments, there will be patients who respond well and those who respond less well, in addition to those who have adverse outcomes from the therapy. Thus, precision treatment can be considered as using patient characteristics to guide the choice of an efficacious therapy to achieve the desired therapeutic goal or outcome while reducing unnecessary side effects (Fig. 3). Given the broad scope of precision treatment, pharmacological therapy in T2D has the best evidence base for precision therapeutics at present.

Subcategories and Drug Outcomes

Traditionally, trials of therapeutic interventions do not recognize variation in etiologic processes that lead to development of T2D. The MASTERMIND consortium recently reanalyzed data from the A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT) and Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes (RECORD) studies in order to highlight how clinical phenotype can be used to help guide treatment intervention. In ADOPT, on average, men without obesity showed a greater HbA1c reduction over 5 years with sulfonylureas than they did with thiazolidinediones; however, women with obesity treated with thiazolidinediones had sustained HbA1c lowering over the 5 years compared with sulfonylureas (88). When considering the clinical and physiological variables used to subgroup individuals with diabetes (39), the insulin-resistant cluster defined in ADOPT and RECORD responded better to thiazolidinediones while the older patient cluster responded better to sulfonylureas (7).

Similar studies have been undertaken to investigate how simple clinical variables can be used to predict glycemic response to dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i). In studies undertaken using prospective (Predicting Response to Incretin Based Agents in Type 2 Diabetes study [PRIBA]) and primary care data in the U.K. (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]), an insulin-resistant phenotype of obesity and high triacylglycerols was associated with reduced initial response to DPP4i and more rapid failure of therapy (89).

As outlined under Precision Diagnostics and elsewhere (the upcoming Expert Forum), the most current examples of how genetics impacts precision treatment can be seen in monogenic diabetes, for which single gene mutations are causal for the development of diabetes and for which targeted treatments can, in effect, bypass the etiological defect (e.g., sulfonylurea sensitivity in HNF1A-MODY [MODY3] [20] and insulin independence with high-dose sulfonylureas in neonatal diabetes due to KATP channel defects [14]). In some instances, precision treatment may result in cessation of unnecessary medication, as is the case in people with GCK-MODY (MODY2), where blood glucose remains somewhat elevated, but stable, over time.

Unlike monogenic forms of diabetes, T2D is a common complex disease characterized by thousands of etiological gene variants. It is uncertain whether individual genetic variants will be highly predictive of drug outcomes. Similar to the underlying genetic architecture of T2D, it is possible that drug response in T2D will be influenced by many genetic variants of small to modest effect. Genetic studies of drug response in T2D have largely been based on candidate genes of known etiological processes or drug pathways. These studies have been limited in their success. For example, some studies have shown that the KCNJ11/ABCC8 E23K/S119A risk variant increases glycemic response to sulfonylureas (90–92); in contrast, the TCF7L2 diabetes risk variant reduces glycemic response to sulfonylureas (93–95). The PPARG Pro12Ala diabetes risk variant has been associated with reduced glycemic response to thiazolidinediones (96–98).

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have the potential to provide novel insights as they make no assumptions about drug mechanism or disease process, in contrast to candidate gene/pathway studies. Only GWAS of metformin have been reported to date (99,100), identifying that variants at the ATM/NPAT and SLC2A2 loci are associated with an altered glycemic response. In SLC2A2, the noncoding rs8192675 variant C allele is associated with greater response to metformin and is associated with reduced expression of the SLC2A2 transporter in liver, intestines, and kidneys. In individuals with obesity, those with two copies of the C allele had an absolute HbA1c reduction of ∼1.55% (compared with a reduction of ∼1.1% in those without the C allele). While this may appear to be a small difference, the SLC2A2 genotype effect is the equivalent of a difference in metformin dose of 550 mg, or about half the average effect of starting a DPP4i.

When considering etiological variation, recent work partitioning diabetes-associated genetic variants by their presumed etiological process (partitioned polygenic scores) (6,42,101) may define genetically driven dominant processes. These processes, such as β-cell dysfunction, lipodystrophy, or obesity, could respond differently to drugs that act on these pathways, such as sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), DPP4i, and thiazolidinediones.

Genetic variation can not only capture etiological variation but also variation in drug pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion [ADME]) and in drug action (pharmacodynamics). Studies of ADME genes have revealed some variants with a moderate to large effect. For example, the 8% of the white population who carry two loss-of-function variants in CYP2C9 are 3.4 times more likely to achieve HbA1c target than those with normal function cytochrome P450 family 2 subfamily C member 9 (CYP2C9) due to reduced metabolism of sulfonylureas and increased serum concentrations (102). SLCO1B1 and CYP2C8 genotypes that alter liver uptake and metabolism of rosiglitazone can alter glycemic response (HbA1c) by as much as 0.7% (103). While these studies have promoted pharmacogenetic approaches in precision diabetes therapeutics, some studies have been surprisingly negative. For example, loss-of-function variants in the SLC22A1 gene, encoding the organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1), which transports metformin into the liver (104,105), do not reduce the glucose-lowering efficacy of metformin in patients with T2D (106,107). Thus, there is genetic evidence that metformin does not work to lower glucose solely via hepatic mechanisms.

The diabetes phenotype is markedly different across ethnic groups; thus, it is likely that drug outcomes will differ between populations. The current and growing burden of diabetes is growing rapidly in all populations, particularly in South and East Asians, yet these populations are underrepresented in clinical and drug outcomes trials. A lack of systematic reviews and meta-analyses from these high-prevalence regions still points to differences in drug response. For example, the DPP4i response is greater in Asian than white people (108), a result supported by a subgroup analysis of the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) showing a greater HbA1c reduction to sitagliptin in East Asians compared with white individuals (109). Glycemic response to metformin has also been reported to differ by ethnic group, with African American individuals having a greater response than European Americans (110).

At this time, it is evident that we have the potential to use simple clinical (e.g., BMI, sex, ethnicity), physiological, and genetic variables to predict who is more or less likely to benefit from a treatment. The reducing costs of genotyping panels mean that genotype information could potentially be available at the point of prescribing, when the modest effect sizes described may start to have clinical utility. There is a need to develop implementation and evaluation strategies to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such approaches compared with conventional treatment approaches.

Precision Approaches to Diabetes in Pregnancy

In women, being affected by GDM is a major risk factor for T2D. The risk of developing T2D in women with prior GDM approaches 70% after the index pregnancy (111), climbing to an 84% risk of developing T2D in women of East Indian ancestry (112). Currently, genetic studies of GDM have identified those variants known to increase risk of T2D (113); however, other variants have been shown to influence glycemic traits specifically in pregnancy (114). Furthermore, like T2D, GDM is a heterogeneous condition linked to primary defects in either insulin secretion or sensitivity (115,116). GDM can also result from monogenic forms of diabetes, as numerous studies have shown. Models that attempt to predict pregnancy complications (117) or subsequent T2D (118) in GDM using clinical characteristics, biomarkers, and/or genetic variants have yet to be adopted, even though both lifestyle interventions and metformin use have demonstrated benefits in reducing the risk of T2D in women with prior GDM (119).

The target for all patients with T1D or T2D in pregnancy is to achieve as near normal glucose as possible, particularly around the time of conception (to reduce developmental anomalies) and in the third trimester (to reduce the risk of macrosomia) (120). In pregnancy, the only clear exception so far is for mothers with GCK-MODY (MODY2) as fetal growth is determined predominantly by fetal genotype (121). In mothers whose fetus inherits the mother’s GCK-MODY mutation, fetal growth is normal despite the maternal hyperglycemia; thus, treatment of the maternal hyperglycemia is not recommended (121,122). Establishing whether the fetus is likely to be affected is usually determined by ultrasound scan. In the future, the use of noninvasive cell-free DNA methods in maternal blood will likely establish fetal risk (123). In GDM, whether maternal hyperglycemia is closely monitored and treated in the third trimester is based on the degree of hyperglycemia determined by an oral glucose tolerance test at 24–28 weeks’ gestation (10). In the future, this decision could be modified by nonglycemic factors that impact fetal growth.

Patient-Centered Mental Health and Quality-of-Life Outcomes

Precision diabetes medicine holds the promise of reducing uncertainty by providing therapies that are more effective, less burdensome, and with fewer adverse outcomes, which ultimately improve quality of life and reduce premature death (see Text Box 5). Highly relevant in this context is mental health (e.g., risk of distress and depression), yet little has been done to investigate how precision medicine might play a useful role in improving mental health outcomes.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Text Box 5

Precision medicine approaches to lessen treatment burden and improve quality of life

Depression and anxiety are twice as common in people with diabetes than in the general population, occurring in up to 20% of adult patients (124). Distress occurs in ∼30% of people with diabetes (125) reflecting the emotional and psychological burden that comes with diabetes and its complications, the life adjustments it requires, and anxiety about hypoglycemia or the impact on the fetus for GDM. Distress has been reported as being more common in patients in secondary rather than primary care and in populations with non-European ancestry. Depression is more common in lower- and middle-income countries, where ∼75% of people with T2D reside (125). Both depression and distress in diabetes are more common in those who progress from oral agents to insulin therapy (126). The onset of complications with the initiation of a more complex pattern of treatment is associated with increased rates of depression (126).

There are key points in the life course of a person with diabetes when both rational and irrational fears are often elevated, typically coinciding with “events,” including:

  • • increased medication dose

  • • transition to insulin or other injectables or devices

  • • emergence of complications or worsening of complications

  • • following a severe hypoglycemic event

  • • change in diabetes care provider.

In many cases, patient self-evaluations may be distorted at these times because the patient attributes blame for the disease to themself, the future feels uncertain and distress peaks. In the setting of precision diabetes medicine, providers should assess symptoms of diabetes distress, depression, anxiety, disordered eating, and cognitive capacities using appropriate standardized and validated tools at the initial visit, at periodic intervals, and when there is a change in disease, treatment, or life circumstance (127), information that, when combined with other data, are likely to improve the precision of clinical decision making.

Psychological counseling can help patients understand and manage their emotional reactions to major events by developing a more optimistic outlook and more realistic, modulated, and adaptive emotional reactions (128). Precision medicine may be used in the future to help predict the frequency and extent of emotional crises. As a result, precision diabetes medicine may lessen the patient burden, help patients to objectivize their disease, and provide targets for behavioral and point-of-care interventions at critical moments in the clinical care cycle. Effective and tailored education and professional counseling will be necessary to mitigate the risk that a clearer prognosis may raise anxiety about the future for some patients.

Equity in Precision Diabetes Medicine

The experience with monogenic diabetes has shown that there is a large degree of regional, national, and international variation in how, and how often, these cases are diagnosed (1,129,130). This variation is, in part, due to differences in access to general medical care and treatments, access to relevant health care professionals with the necessary education, training, and experience, and access to laboratories with the necessary experience, assays, and standards (131). A precision approach to diabetes care will require that the relevant laboratory methods and assays are carefully standardized and comparable. Assessments that need to be standardized include:

  • • T1D-associated autoantibodies

  • • C-peptide

  • • clinical genetic/genomic risk scores

  • • decision-support interpretation.

A challenge is that the frequency of various diabetes phenotypes and risk genotypes may vary by regions of the world and between ethnicities within a region. For example, T2D often manifests very differently in Native Americans than in people of European ancestry, with Native Americans tending to develop diabetes at a much younger age and experience loss of β-cell function earlier in the life course of the disease (132). Recent insights following the ADA Precision Diabetes Medicine meeting in Madrid (held in October 2019) confirm that case-based interactive learning is an excellent way to support this type of postgraduate education for clinicians at all levels of training.

The Road to Implementation

Advances in science allow for generation of large-scale biological and physiological data that can be harnessed for precision diagnostic (Fig. 2), therapeutic (Fig. 3), and prognostic (Fig. 4) purposes. Programs are needed to train, foster, and retain individuals with biological and data science expertise who will contribute to precision diabetes medicine efforts. Furthermore, clinicians, scientists, and regulators must collaborate to develop standards and safeguards for protecting the accumulated “precise” data, which in some instances may lead to unintended and sensitive revelations, on individuals in a secure manner across populations and across countries. Worldwide differences in prevalence of the forms of diabetes necessitates inclusion of currently understudied populations for the development of precision diagnostics and therapeutics. As a result, the precise subtype of diabetes a particular individual is diagnosed with may vary in different populations based on subtype frequency or genetic or dietary or lifestyle differences.

The communication strategy used by the interventionalist and the patient’s perception of risk may be important factors contributing to the successful implementation of precision diabetes medicine. Both personal and societal barriers may exist to the implementation of precision prevention across geographic regions and countries. Discussions with global and regional regulatory agencies will be needed to determine the level of evidence needed for approval and adoption of precision diagnostics and therapeutics. The development of tools and strategies to synthesize patient data and facilitate shared decision making will be needed to translate evidence for precision diabetes medicine into individualized diabetes care, accounting for patient preferences and behaviors, health literacy, and socioeconomic considerations. Pragmatic studies of decision-support systems utilizing rich information in these health care systems, particularly those with biobank-linked electronic health care records, are needed to guide implementation of precision diabetes medicine into clinical practice and to generate the much needed cost-efficacy data for broader adoption.

Building Partnerships

Partnerships must be established between the scientific community, patients, health care systems, providers, payors, industry, and regulatory bodies involved in the development, evaluation, approval, adoption, and implementation of precision diagnostics, monitoring, and therapeutics that are deemed acceptable for safe, efficacious, and cost-effective use in precision diabetes care. Making the most of the opportunities offered by precision diabetes medicine will require many different stakeholders to form highly effective partnerships. Without networks of partnerships that span academic institutions, corporations, payors, regulators, and medical and public interest groups with shared understanding and vision (Fig. 5), precision diabetes medicine is destined to fail. Partners in making precision diabetes medicine a reality include:

People with diabetes. People with diabetes are the most important stakeholders. In Western countries, between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 people have diabetes, while in other parts of the world, diabetes is more prevalent (1 in 3 in some Middle Eastern populations (133), and 1 in 2 in some Native American tribes [132]). The precision approach to diabetes will require effective patient-facing, bidirectional communication strategies that explain what precision medicine is and how it works. People with diabetes should be invited to contribute to research through advisory and advocacy positions, to contribute to postgraduate educational programs for clinicians and to play a central role in discussions with politicians, regulators, and payors.

Regulatory agencies. The transition from current diabetes clinical practice to a precision medicine approach will have important implications for the development, prescription, and regulation of diagnostics and therapeutics. Involvement of regulators at the earliest stages of the precision diabetes medicine workflow will be critical to the successful implementation of the precision approach. Recognizing these challenges, the FDA and the European Medicines Agency have initiated discussions relating to standards for evidence and the design of future clinical trials for precision diabetes medicine (134).

Payors. Payment for medical care related to diabetes varies greatly, including between regions within countries, with costs for diabetes often hidden in other areas of medical care. Fragmentation of sites of delivery for diabetes care and its costs directly impact payment policies. There is evidence in the case of monogenic diabetes that a precision medicine approach is cost-effective (135). The delay, or prevention, of complications (the major contributor to diabetes costs) through precision diabetes medicine may be the strongest driver for adoption.

Product manufacturers. Diabetes technology, including the development of wearable devices for glucose monitoring and for regulating insulin infusions (i.e., the artificial pancreas), has developed rapidly and is an example of widespread personalized diabetes medicine. Technology and pharmaceutical implementation is currently at a pre-precision level, and treatment guidelines are quite generic. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) Diabetes Platform, in which six leading pharmaceutical companies are developing shared policy goals focused on improving diabetes clinical outcomes, has initiated multiple projects with strong precision diabetes medicine agendas, with other public-private partnerships focused on precision diabetes medicine underway (136).

Private and public supporters of research. Support for diabetes research funding has struggled as its priority has fallen among the general public and some political decision makers, where cancer and cardiovascular disease rank consistently higher than diabetes on the public agenda. For precision diabetes medicine to meaningfully improve the lives of patients, it will be necessary to build highly effective networks of key stakeholders, such that common agendas are agreed to and funding for research and implementation is made available. This, in turn, requires that the evidence justifying a precision diabetes medicine approach is clearly articulated to all major decision makers, including funders.

Clinicians and professional organizations. Medical care for the person with diabetes involves a wide spectrum of health care providers, including tertiary and secondary specialists, general internists, primary care doctors, nurses, dietitians, podiatrists, pharmacists, and other paramedical professionals. Several organizations are engaged in the PMDI (ADA, EASD, NIDDK) and representatives of professional bodies in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere are being engaged by the PMDI to ensure global impact. Tailoring educational modules and content to different professional and cultural settings is ideally suited to these partner organizations.

General public. The enormous burden that diabetes places on many health care systems is usually shouldered by the general public, owing to the high costs of treating the disease and loss of public revenue through decreased productivity. The effective implementation of precision prevention will require that the general public embraces the approach and that those in greatest need can access precision prevention programs. Diabetes messaging for the general public can be modeled on precision oncology, for which public advocacy and engagement have been successful, effectively utilizing social media as well as traditional media to communicate not only its strengths and weaknesses but also its benefits and risks.

Figure 5
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5

The path to precision diabetes medicine. HEA, health economic assessment. Adapted from Fitipaldi et al. (136).

Summary and Future Perspectives

Precision diabetes medicine has found a firm foothold in the diagnosis and treatment of monogenic diabetes, while the application of precision medicine to other types of diabetes is at this time aspirational, rather than standard of care. The ability to integrate the diagnosis of monogenic diabetes into routine clinical care is one example where diagnostics are essential and meet many of the characteristics of the ideal test. Despite an excellent diagnostic paradigm, there are no known avenues for prevention in monogenic diabetes, although careful monitoring in presymptomatic variant carriers may lead to early detection of diabetes and rapid treatment.

Future precision diabetes medicine approaches are likely to include diagnostic algorithms for defining diabetes subtypes in order to decide the best interventional and therapeutic approaches. The scope and potential for precision treatment in diabetes is vast, yet deep understanding is lacking. It will be imperative to determine when and how the application of therapeutics in precision diabetes medicine improves outcomes in a cost-effective fashion.

There are many important stakeholders whose engagement will be necessary for the implementation of precision diabetes medicine to succeed (Fig. 5). Progress in translating advances in biology and technology will be governed by the identification, accurate measurement, and scalable deployment of agents for diagnosis and therapy, so broad stakeholder engagement is essential. It is crucial that precision approaches are available to the full diversity of human populations and societal contexts, such that precision diabetes medicine does not widen health disparity but achieves the greatest benefits to all individuals and society as a whole. Highly functional partnerships with patient representatives and public organizations will be required to reap the benefits of precision diabetes medicine.

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors thank P. Siming (Lund University) for editorial assistance, H. Fitipalidi (Lund University) for assistance with the design of the figures and Prof. H. Mulder (Lund University) for technical critique. The authors acknowledge the invited peer reviewers who provided comments on an earlier draft of this report: Helen Colhoun (University of Edinburgh), Boris Draznin (University of Colorado School of Medicine), Torben Hansen (University of Copenhagen), Pål Njølstad (University of Bergen), and Matthew C. Riddle (Oregon Health and Science University).

Funding. Funding for the PMDI is from the American Diabetes Association. In-kind support has been provided by the academic institutions of each Task Force member. The ideas and opinions expressed in this report were derived in part from work undertaken by the coauthors, for which they report the following support: W.K.C. (NIH: R01 DK52431, P30 DK26687, U54 TR001873, and U54DK118612); A.T.H. (Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator: 098395; National Institute for Health Research [NIHR] Senior Investigator and support of Exeter NIHR Clinical Research Facility; Medical Research Council [MRC]: MR-K005707-1); M.-F.H. (ADA 1-15-ACE-26, NIH 5R01HD94150-02); M.I.M. (Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator and NIHR Senior Investigator: 203141, 212259, 098381; NIDDK: U01-DK105535); J.M.N. (NIH: R01 DK104351, R21 AI142483); E.R.P. (Wellcome Trust New Investigator award: 102820/Z/13/Z); L.P. (NIH: R01DK104942, P30 DK02059, U54DK118612); S.S.R. (NIH: DP3 DK111906, R01 DK122586; University of Virginia Strategic Investment Fund SIF88); P.W.F. (European Research Council: CoG-2015_681742_NASCENT; Swedish Research Council; Novo Nordisk Foundation; European Diabetes Research Foundation; Swedish Heart Lung Foundation; Innovative Medicines Initiative of the European Union: no. 115317 – DIRECT and no. 115881 – RHAPSODY; no. 875534 – SOPHIA).

Duality of Interest. W.K.C. is on the scientific advisory board of the Regeneron Genetics Center. J.C.F. has received a speaking honorarium from Novo Nordisk and consulting fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. M.I.M. has in the past 3 years served on advisory panels for Pfizer, Novo Nordisk A/S, and Zoe Global Ltd.; has received honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and has received research funding from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. As of June 2019, M.I.M. is an employee of Genentech and a holder of Roche stock. E.R.P. has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, and Servier and honoraria from Eli Lilly. L.P. has received research funding from Janssen and Provention Bio. P.W.F. has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, and Servier; received consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Zoe Global Ltd.; and has stock options in Zoe Global Ltd. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

  • M.I.M is currently affiliated with Genentech, South San Francisco, CA

  • This article is being simultaneously published in Diabetologia (DOI: 10.1007/s00125-020-05181-w) and Diabetes Care (DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0022) by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes
https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hattersley AT,
    2. Patel KA
    . Precision diabetes: learning from monogenic diabetes. Diabetologia 2017;60:769–777
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. De Franco E,
    2. Flanagan SE,
    3. Houghton JA, et al
    . The effect of early, comprehensive genomic testing on clinical care in neonatal diabetes: an international cohort study. Lancet 2015;386:957–963
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Oram RA,
    2. Patel K,
    3. Hill A, et al
    . A type 1 diabetes genetic risk score can aid discrimination between type 1 and type 2 diabetes in young adults. Diabetes Care 2016;39:337–344
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Grubb AL,
    2. McDonald TJ,
    3. Rutters F, et al
    . A type 1 diabetes genetic risk score can identify patients with GAD65 autoantibody-positive type 2 diabetes who rapidly progress to insulin therapy. Diabetes Care 2019;42:208–214
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Sharp SA,
    2. Rich SS,
    3. Wood AR, et al
    . Development and standardization of an improved type 1 diabetes genetic risk score for use in newborn screening and incident diagnosis. Diabetes Care 2019;42:200–207
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Udler MS,
    2. McCarthy MI,
    3. Florez JC,
    4. Mahajan A
    . Genetic risk scores for diabetes diagnosis and precision medicine. Endocr Rev 2019;40:1500–1520
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Dennis JM,
    2. Shields BM,
    3. Henley WE,
    4. Jones AG,
    5. Hattersley AT
    . Disease progression and treatment response in data-driven subgroups of type 2 diabetes compared with models based on simple clinical features: an analysis using clinical trial data. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019;7:442–451
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Fleming GA,
    2. Petrie JR,
    3. Bergenstal RM,
    4. Holl RW,
    5. Peters AL,
    6. Heinemann L
    . Diabetes digital app technology: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A consensus report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetes Care 2020;43:250–260
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Fleming GA,
    2. Petrie JR,
    3. Bergenstal RM,
    4. Holl RW,
    5. Peters AL,
    6. Heinemann L
    . Diabetes digital app technology: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A consensus report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetologia 2020;63:229–241
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care 2020;43(Suppl. 1):S14–S31
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Thomas NJ,
    2. Jones SE,
    3. Weedon MN,
    4. Shields BM,
    5. Oram RA,
    6. Hattersley AT
    . Frequency and phenotype of type 1 diabetes in the first six decades of life: a cross-sectional, genetically stratified survival analysis from UK Biobank. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:122–129
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Thomas NJ,
    2. Lynam AL,
    3. Hill AV, et al
    . Type 1 diabetes defined by severe insulin deficiency occurs after 30 years of age and is commonly treated as type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2019;62:1167–1172
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Gloyn AL,
    2. Pearson ER,
    3. Antcliff JF, et al
    . Activating mutations in the gene encoding the ATP-sensitive potassium-channel subunit Kir6.2 and permanent neonatal diabetes. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1838–1849
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Pearson ER,
    2. Flechtner I,
    3. Njølstad PR, et al.; Neonatal Diabetes International Collaborative Group
    . Switching from insulin to oral sulfonylureas in patients with diabetes due to Kir6.2 mutations. N Engl J Med 2006;355:467–477
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Babenko AP,
    2. Polak M,
    3. Cavé H, et al
    . Activating mutations in the ABCC8 gene in neonatal diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2006;355:456–466
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Sagen JV,
    2. Raeder H,
    3. Hathout E, et al
    . Permanent neonatal diabetes due to mutations in KCNJ11 encoding Kir6.2: patient characteristics and initial response to sulfonylurea therapy. Diabetes 2004;53:2713–2718
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Bowman P,
    2. Sulen Å,
    3. Barbetti F, et al.; Neonatal Diabetes International Collaborative Group
    . Effectiveness and safety of long-term treatment with sulfonylureas in patients with neonatal diabetes due to KCNJ11 mutations: an international cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:637–646
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Steele AM,
    2. Shields BM,
    3. Wensley KJ,
    4. Colclough K,
    5. Ellard S,
    6. Hattersley AT
    . Prevalence of vascular complications among patients with glucokinase mutations and prolonged, mild hyperglycemia. JAMA 2014;311:279–286
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Stride A,
    2. Shields B,
    3. Gill-Carey O, et al
    . Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies suggest pharmacological treatment used in patients with glucokinase mutations does not alter glycaemia. Diabetologia 2014;57:54–56
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Pearson ER,
    2. Starkey BJ,
    3. Powell RJ,
    4. Gribble FM,
    5. Clark PM,
    6. Hattersley AT
    . Genetic cause of hyperglycaemia and response to treatment in diabetes. Lancet 2003;362:1275–1281
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Pearson ER,
    2. Pruhova S,
    3. Tack CJ, et al
    . Molecular genetics and phenotypic characteristics of MODY caused by hepatocyte nuclear factor 4alpha mutations in a large European collection. Diabetologia 2005;48:878–885
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Bowman P,
    2. Flanagan SE,
    3. Edghill EL, et al
    . Heterozygous ABCC8 mutations are a cause of MODY. Diabetologia 2012;55:123–127
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Shields BM,
    2. McDonald TJ,
    3. Ellard S,
    4. Campbell MJ,
    5. Hyde C,
    6. Hattersley AT
    . The development and validation of a clinical prediction model to determine the probability of MODY in patients with young-onset diabetes. Diabetologia 2012;55:1265–1272
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Carlsson A,
    2. Shepherd M,
    3. Ellard S, et al
    . Absence of islet autoantibodies and modestly raised glucose values at diabetes diagnosis should lead to testing for MODY: lessons from a 5-year pediatric Swedish national cohort study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:82–89
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Ellard S,
    2. Colclough K,
    3. Patel KA,
    4. Hattersley AT
    . Prediction algorithms: pitfalls in interpreting genetic variants of autosomal dominant monogenic diabetes. J Clin Invest 2020;130:14–16
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Clissold RL,
    2. Hamilton AJ,
    3. Hattersley AT,
    4. Ellard S,
    5. Bingham C
    . HNF1B-associated renal and extra-renal disease-an expanding clinical spectrum. Nat Rev Nephrol 2015;11:102–112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Adam MP,
    2. Ardinger HH,
    3. Pagon RA, et al
    1. Tranebjaerg L,
    2. Barrett T,
    3. Rendtorff ND
    . WFS1 Wolfram syndrome spectrum disorder. In GeneReviews®. Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al., Eds. Seattle, WA, University of Washington, Seattle, 1993-2020 [Internet]. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301750. Accessed 13 May 2020
  25. ↵
    1. Murphy R,
    2. Turnbull DM,
    3. Walker M,
    4. Hattersley AT
    . Clinical features, diagnosis and management of maternally inherited diabetes and deafness (MIDD) associated with the 3243A>G mitochondrial point mutation. Diabet Med 2008;25:383–399
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Tuomi T,
    2. Groop LC,
    3. Zimmet PZ,
    4. Rowley MJ,
    5. Knowles W,
    6. Mackay IR
    . Antibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase reveal latent autoimmune diabetes mellitus in adults with a non-insulin-dependent onset of disease. Diabetes 1993;42:359–362
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Brophy S,
    2. Yderstraede K,
    3. Mauricio D, et al.; Action LADA Group
    . Time to insulin initiation cannot be used in defining latent autoimmune diabetes in adults. Diabetes Care 2008;31:439–441
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Hawa MI,
    2. Kolb H,
    3. Schloot N, et al.; Action LADA consortium
    . Adult-onset autoimmune diabetes in Europe is prevalent with a broad clinical phenotype: Action LADA 7. Diabetes Care 2013;36:908–913
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Battaglia M,
    2. Ahmed S,
    3. Anderson MS, et al
    . Introducing the endotype concept to address the challenge of disease heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2020;43:5–12
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Onengut-Gumuscu S,
    2. Chen WM,
    3. Robertson CC, et al.; SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth; Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium
    . Type 1 diabetes risk in African-Ancestry participants and utility of an ancestry-specific genetic risk score. Diabetes Care 2019;42:406–415
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Rich SS
    . Genetics and its potential to improve type 1 diabetes care. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2017;24:279–284
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Onengut-Gumuscu S,
    2. Chen WM,
    3. Burren O, et al.; Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium
    . Fine mapping of type 1 diabetes susceptibility loci and evidence for colocalization of causal variants with lymphoid gene enhancers. Nat Genet 2015;47:381–386
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Rickels MR,
    2. Evans-Molina C,
    3. Bahnson HT, et al.; T1D Exchange β-Cell Function Study Group
    . High residual C-peptide likely contributes to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes. J Clin Invest 2020;130:1850–1862
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Hao W,
    2. Gitelman S,
    3. DiMeglio LA,
    4. Boulware D,
    5. Greenbaum CJ; Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group
    . Fall in C-peptide during first 4 years from diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: variable relation to age, HbA1c, and insulin dose. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1664–1670
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Shields BM,
    2. McDonald TJ,
    3. Oram R, et al.; TIGI Consortium
    . C-peptide decline in type 1 diabetes has two phases: an initial exponential fall and a subsequent stable phase. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1486–1492
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Ahlqvist E,
    2. Storm P,
    3. Käräjämäki A, et al
    . Novel subgroups of adult-onset diabetes and their association with outcomes: a data-driven cluster analysis of six variables. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:361–369
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Zaharia OP,
    2. Strassburger K,
    3. Strom A, et al.; German Diabetes Study Group
    . Risk of diabetes-associated diseases in subgroups of patients with recent-onset diabetes: a 5-year follow-up study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019;7:684–694
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Little RR,
    2. Rohlfing CL,
    3. Tennill AL, et al
    . Standardization of C-peptide measurements. Clin Chem 2008;54:1023–1026
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Udler MS,
    2. Kim J,
    3. von Grotthuss M, et al.; Christopher D. Anderson on behalf of METASTROKE and the ISGC
    . Type 2 diabetes genetic loci informed by multi-trait associations point to disease mechanisms and subtypes: A soft clustering analysis. PLoS Med 2018;15:e1002654
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Mahajan A,
    2. Wessel J,
    3. Willems SM, et al.; ExomeBP Consortium; MAGIC Consortium; GIANT Consortium
    . Refining the accuracy of validated target identification through coding variant fine-mapping in type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 2018;50:559–571
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Insel RA,
    2. Dunne JL,
    3. Atkinson MA, et al
    . Staging presymptomatic type 1 diabetes: a scientific statement of JDRF, the Endocrine Society, and the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2015;38:1964–1974
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Krischer JP; Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group
    . The use of intermediate endpoints in the design of type 1 diabetes prevention trials. Diabetologia 2013;56:1919–1924
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Ziegler AG,
    2. Rewers M,
    3. Simell O, et al
    . Seroconversion to multiple islet autoantibodies and risk of progression to diabetes in children. JAMA 2013;309:2473–2479
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Cowie CC,
    2. Casagrande SS,
    3. Menke A, et al
    1. Rewers M,
    2. Stene LC,
    3. Norris JM
    . Chapter 11: Risk factors for type 1 diabetes. In Diabetes in America, 3rd ed. Cowie CC, Casagrande SS, Menke A, et al., Eds. Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health, 2018
  44. ↵
    1. Cowie CC,
    2. Casagrande SS, et al
    1. Skyler JS,
    2. Kirchner JP,
    3. Becker D,
    4. Rewers M
    . Chapter 37: Prevention of type 1 diabetes In Diabetes in America, 3rd ed. Cowie CC, Casagrande SS, et al., Eds. Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health, 2018
  45. ↵
    1. Knip M,
    2. Åkerblom HK,
    3. Becker D, et al.; TRIGR Study Group
    . Hydrolyzed infant formula and early β-cell autoimmunity: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;311:2279–2287
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Vaarala O,
    2. Ilonen J,
    3. Ruohtula T, et al
    . Removal of bovine insulin from cow’s milk formula and early initiation of beta-cell autoimmunity in the FINDIA pilot study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2012;166:608–614
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Hummel S,
    2. Pflüger M,
    3. Hummel M,
    4. Bonifacio E,
    5. Ziegler AG
    . Primary dietary intervention study to reduce the risk of islet autoimmunity in children at increased risk for type 1 diabetes: the BABYDIET study. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1301–1305
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Knip M,
    2. Åkerblom HK,
    3. Al Taji E, et al.; Writing Group for the TRIGR Study Group
    . Effect of hydrolyzed infant formula vs conventional formula on risk of type 1 diabetes: the TRIGR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;319:38–48
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Näntö-Salonen K,
    2. Kupila A,
    3. Simell S, et al
    . Nasal insulin to prevent type 1 diabetes in children with HLA genotypes and autoantibodies conferring increased risk of disease: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372:1746–1755
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Krischer JP,
    2. Schatz DA,
    3. Bundy B,
    4. Skyler JS,
    5. Greenbaum CJ; Writing Committee for the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Oral Insulin Study Group
    . Effect of oral insulin on prevention of diabetes in relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;318:1891–1902
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Elding Larsson H,
    2. Lundgren M,
    3. Jonsdottir B,
    4. Cuthbertson D,
    5. Krischer J; DiAPREV-IT Study Group
    . Safety and efficacy of autoantigen-specific therapy with 2 doses of alum-formulated glutamate decarboxylase in children with multiple islet autoantibodies and risk for type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Pediatr Diabetes 2018;19:410–419
    OpenUrl
    1. Lampeter EF,
    2. Klinghammer A,
    3. Scherbaum WA, et al.; DENIS Group
    . The Deutsche Nicotinamide Intervention Study: an attempt to prevent type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 1998;47:980–984
    OpenUrlAbstract
    1. Gale EA,
    2. Bingley PJ,
    3. Emmett CL,
    4. Collier T; European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial (ENDIT) Group
    . European Nicotinamide Diabetes Intervention Trial (ENDIT): a randomised controlled trial of intervention before the onset of type 1 diabetes. Lancet 2004;363:925–931
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 Diabetes Study Group
    . Effects of insulin in relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1685–1691
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Vehik K,
    2. Cuthbertson D,
    3. Ruhlig H,
    4. Schatz DA,
    5. Peakman M,
    6. Krischer JP; DPT-1 and TrialNet Study Groups
    . Long-term outcome of individuals treated with oral insulin: Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 (DPT-1) oral insulin trial. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1585–1590
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Vandemeulebroucke E,
    2. Gorus FK,
    3. Decochez K, et al.; Belgian Diabetes Registry
    . Insulin treatment in IA-2A-positive relatives of type 1 diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab 2009;35:319–327
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Herold KC,
    2. Bundy BN,
    3. Long SA, et al.; Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group
    . An anti-CD3 antibody, teplizumab, in relatives at risk for type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:603–613
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Hober D,
    2. Alidjinou EK
    . Enteroviral pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes: queries and answers. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2013;26:263–269
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Hakola L,
    2. Takkinen HM,
    3. Niinistö S, et al
    . Infant feeding in relation to the risk of advanced islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes in children with increased genetic susceptibility: a cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 2018;187:34–44
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Tapia G,
    2. Mårild K,
    3. Dahl SR, et al
    . Maternal and newborn vitamin D-binding protein, vitamin D levels, vitamin D receptor genotype, and childhood type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2019;42:553–559
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Norris JM,
    2. Kroehl M,
    3. Fingerlin TE, et al
    . Erythrocyte membrane docosapentaenoic acid levels are associated with islet autoimmunity: the Diabetes Autoimmunity Study in the Young. Diabetologia 2014;57:295–304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. DECODE Study Group; the European Diabetes Epidemiology Group.
    Glucose tolerance and cardiovascular mortality: comparison of fasting and 2-hour diagnostic criteria. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:397–405
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    1. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Within-trial cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention or metformin for the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26:2518–2523
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . 12. Older adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care 2020;43(Suppl. 1):S152–S162
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Haw JS,
    2. Galaviz KI,
    3. Straus AN, et al
    . Long-term sustainability of diabetes prevention approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:1808–1817
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Knowler WC,
    2. Barrett-Connor E,
    3. Fowler SE, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. Crandall J,
    2. Schade D,
    3. Ma Y, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . The influence of age on the effects of lifestyle modification and metformin in prevention of diabetes. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2006;61:1075–1081
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. ↵
    1. Knowler WC,
    2. Fowler SE,
    3. Hamman RF, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet 2009;374:1677–1686
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. ↵
    1. Delahanty LM,
    2. Pan Q,
    3. Jablonski KA, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Effects of weight loss, weight cycling, and weight loss maintenance on diabetes incidence and change in cardiometabolic traits in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabetes Care 2014;37:2738–2745
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Papandonatos GD,
    2. Pan Q,
    3. Pajewski NM, et al.; GIANT Consortium; Diabetes Prevention Program and the Look AHEAD Research Groups
    . Genetic predisposition to weight loss and regain with lifestyle intervention: analyses from the Diabetes Prevention Program and the Look AHEAD randomized controlled trials. Diabetes 2015;64:4312–4321
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. Langenberg C,
    2. Sharp SJ,
    3. Franks PW, et al
    . Gene-lifestyle interaction and type 2 diabetes: the EPIC interact case-cohort study. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001647
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Hivert MF,
    2. Christophi CA,
    3. Franks PW, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Lifestyle and metformin ameliorate insulin sensitivity independently of the genetic burden of established insulin resistance variants in Diabetes Prevention Program participants. Diabetes 2016;65:520–526
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Hivert MF,
    2. Jablonski KA,
    3. Perreault L, et al.; DIAGRAM Consortium; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Updated genetic score based on 34 confirmed type 2 diabetes loci is associated with diabetes incidence and regression to normoglycemia in the diabetes prevention program. Diabetes 2011;60:1340–1348
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Kilpeläinen TO,
    2. Qi L,
    3. Brage S, et al
    . Physical activity attenuates the influence of FTO variants on obesity risk: a meta-analysis of 218,166 adults and 19,268 children. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1001116
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shungin D,
    2. Deng WQ,
    3. Varga TV, et al.; GIANT Consortium
    . Ranking and characterization of established BMI and lipid associated loci as candidates for gene-environment interactions. PLoS Genet 2017;13:e1006812
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Graff M,
    2. Scott RA,
    3. Justice AE, et al.; CHARGE Consortium; EPIC-InterAct Consortium; PAGE Consortium
    . Genome-wide physical activity interactions in adiposity—a meta-analysis of 200,452 adults. PLoS Genet 2017;13:e1006528
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Tyrrell J,
    2. Wood AR,
    3. Ames RM, et al
    . Gene-obesogenic environment interactions in the UK Biobank study. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:559–575
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Livingstone KM,
    2. Celis-Morales C,
    3. Papandonatos GD, et al
    . FTO genotype and weight loss: systematic review and meta-analysis of 9563 individual participant data from eight randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2016;354:i4707
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Godino JG,
    2. van Sluijs EM,
    3. Marteau TM,
    4. Sutton S,
    5. Sharp SJ,
    6. Griffin SJ
    . Lifestyle advice combined with personalized estimates of genetic or phenotypic risk of type 2 diabetes, and objectively measured physical activity: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002185
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Zeevi D,
    2. Korem T,
    3. Zmora N, et al
    . personalized nutrition by prediction of glycemic responses. Cell 2015;163:1079–1094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Jablonski KA,
    2. McAteer JB,
    3. de Bakker PI, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Common variants in 40 genes assessed for diabetes incidence and response to metformin and lifestyle intervention in the diabetes prevention program. Diabetes 2010;59:2672–2681
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Apolzan JW,
    2. Venditti EM,
    3. Edelstein SL, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Long-term weight loss with metformin or lifestyle intervention in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Ann Intern Med 2019;170:682–690
    OpenUrl
  74. ↵
    1. Lean ME,
    2. Leslie WS,
    3. Barnes AC, et al
    . Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2018;391:541–551
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Dennis JM,
    2. Shields BM,
    3. Jones AG,
    4. Pearson ER,
    5. Hattersley AT,
    6. Henley WE; MASTERMIND consortium
    . Evaluating associations between the benefits and risks of drug therapy in type 2 diabetes: a joint modeling approach. Clin Epidemiol 2018;10:1869–1877
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Dennis JM,
    2. Shields BM,
    3. Hill AV, et al.; MASTERMIND Consortium
    . Precision medicine in type 2 diabetes: clinical markers of insulin resistance are associated with altered short- and long-term glycemic response to DPP-4 inhibitor therapy. Diabetes Care 2018;41:705–712
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    1. Feng Y,
    2. Mao G,
    3. Ren X, et al
    . Ser1369Ala variant in sulfonylurea receptor gene ABCC8 is associated with antidiabetic efficacy of gliclazide in Chinese type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2008;31:1939–1944
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Zhang H,
    2. Liu X,
    3. Kuang H,
    4. Yi R,
    5. Xing H
    . Association of sulfonylurea receptor 1 genotype with therapeutic response to gliclazide in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2007;77:58–61
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Javorsky M,
    2. Klimcakova L,
    3. Schroner Z, et al
    . KCNJ11 gene E23K variant and therapeutic response to sulfonylureas. Eur J Intern Med 2012;23:245–249
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Pearson ER,
    2. Donnelly LA,
    3. Kimber C, et al
    . Variation in TCF7L2 influences therapeutic response to sulfonylureas: a GoDARTs study. Diabetes 2007;56:2178–2182
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Schroner Z,
    2. Javorsky M,
    3. Tkacova R, et al
    . Effect of sulphonylurea treatment on glycaemic control is related to TCF7L2 genotype in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2011;13:89–91
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  80. ↵
    1. Javorský M,
    2. Babjaková E,
    3. Klimčáková L, et al
    . Association between TCF7L2 genotype and glycemic control in diabetic patients treated with gliclazide. Int J Endocrinol 2013;2013:374858
    OpenUrl
  81. ↵
    1. Kang ES,
    2. Park SY,
    3. Kim HJ, et al
    . Effects of Pro12Ala polymorphism of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma2 gene on rosiglitazone response in type 2 diabetes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005;78:202–208
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Hsieh MC,
    2. Lin KD,
    3. Tien KJ, et al
    . Common polymorphisms of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (Pro12Ala) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma coactivator-1 (Gly482Ser) and the response to pioglitazone in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 2010;59:1139–1144
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Pei Q,
    2. Huang Q,
    3. Yang GP, et al
    . PPAR-γ2 and PTPRD gene polymorphisms influence type 2 diabetes patients’ response to pioglitazone in China. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2013;34:255–261
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Zhou K,
    2. Bellenguez C,
    3. Spencer CC, et al.; GoDARTS and UKPDS Diabetes Pharmacogenetics Study Group; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2; MAGIC investigators
    . Common variants near ATM are associated with glycemic response to metformin in type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 2011;43:117–120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Zhou K,
    2. Yee SW,
    3. Seiser EL, et al.; MetGen Investigators; DPP Investigators; ACCORD Investigators
    . Variation in the glucose transporter gene SLC2A2 is associated with glycemic response to metformin. Nat Genet 2016;48:1055–1059
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Mahajan A,
    2. Taliun D,
    3. Thurner M, et al
    . Fine-mapping type 2 diabetes loci to single-variant resolution using high-density imputation and islet-specific epigenome maps. Nat Genet 2018;50:1505–1513
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Zhou K,
    2. Donnelly L,
    3. Burch L, et al
    . Loss-of-function CYP2C9 variants improve therapeutic response to sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes: a Go-DARTS study. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010;87:52–56
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  87. ↵
    1. Dawed AY,
    2. Donnelly L,
    3. Tavendale R, et al
    . CYP2C8 and SLCO1B1 variants and therapeutic response to thiazolidinediones in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1902–1908
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. ↵
    1. Shu Y,
    2. Sheardown SA,
    3. Brown C, et al
    . Effect of genetic variation in the organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1) on metformin action. J Clin Invest 2007;117:1422–1431
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  89. ↵
    1. Sundelin E,
    2. Gormsen LC,
    3. Jensen JB, et al
    . Genetic polymorphisms in organic cation transporter 1 attenuates hepatic metformin exposure in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2017;102:841–848
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. Zhou K,
    2. Donnelly LA,
    3. Kimber CH, et al
    . Reduced-function SLC22A1 polymorphisms encoding organic cation transporter 1 and glycemic response to metformin: a GoDARTS study. Diabetes 2009;58:1434–1439
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    1. Dujic T,
    2. Zhou K,
    3. Yee SW, et al
    . Variants in pharmacokinetic transporters and glycemic response to metformin: a MetGen meta-Analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2017;101:763–772
    OpenUrl
  92. ↵
    1. Kim YG,
    2. Hahn S,
    3. Oh TJ,
    4. Kwak SH,
    5. Park KS,
    6. Cho YM
    . Differences in the glucose-lowering efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors between Asians and non-Asians: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2013;56:696–708
    OpenUrl
  93. ↵
    1. Davis TME,
    2. Mulder H,
    3. Lokhnygina Y, et al.; TECOS Study Group
    . Effect of race on the glycaemic response to sitagliptin: insights from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). Diabetes Obes Metab 2018;20:1427–1434
    OpenUrl
  94. ↵
    1. Williams LK,
    2. Padhukasahasram B,
    3. Ahmedani BK, et al
    . Differing effects of metformin on glycemic control by race-ethnicity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2014;99:3160–3168
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Kim C,
    2. Newton KM,
    3. Knopp RH
    . Gestational diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1862–1868
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. ↵
    1. Das Gupta R,
    2. Gupta S,
    3. Das A,
    4. Biswas T,
    5. Haider MR,
    6. Sarker M
    . Ethnic predisposition of diabetes mellitus in the patients with previous history of gestational diabetes mellitus: a review. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 2018;13:149–158
    OpenUrl
  97. ↵
    1. Lowe WL Jr,
    2. Scholtens DM,
    3. Sandler V,
    4. Hayes MG
    . Genetics of gestational diabetes mellitus and maternal metabolism. Curr Diab Rep 2016;16:15
    OpenUrlPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Hayes MG,
    2. Urbanek M,
    3. Hivert MF, et al.; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group
    . Identification of HKDC1 and BACE2 as genes influencing glycemic traits during pregnancy through genome-wide association studies. Diabetes 2013;62:3282–3291
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. ↵
    1. Powe CE,
    2. Allard C,
    3. Battista MC, et al
    . Heterogeneous contribution of insulin sensitivity and secretion defects to gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1052–1055
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. ↵
    1. Benhalima K,
    2. Van Crombrugge P,
    3. Moyson C, et al
    . Characteristics and pregnancy outcomes across gestational diabetes mellitus subtypes based on insulin resistance. Diabetologia 2019;62:2118–2128
    OpenUrl
  101. ↵
    1. Cooray SD,
    2. Boyle JA,
    3. Soldatos G,
    4. Wijeyaratne LA,
    5. Teede HJ
    . Prognostic prediction models for pregnancy complications in women with gestational diabetes: a protocol for systematic review, critical appraisal and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2019;8:270
    OpenUrl
  102. ↵
    1. Tobias DK
    . Prediction and prevention of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of GDM. Curr Diab Rep 2018;18:78
    OpenUrl
  103. ↵
    1. Aroda VR,
    2. Christophi CA,
    3. Edelstein SL, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . The effect of lifestyle intervention and metformin on preventing or delaying diabetes among women with and without gestational diabetes: the Diabetes Prevention Program outcomes study 10-year follow-up. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100:1646–1653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . 14. Management of diabetes in pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care 2020;43(Suppl. 1):S183–S192
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. ↵
    1. Spyer G,
    2. Macleod KM,
    3. Shepherd M,
    4. Ellard S,
    5. Hattersley AT
    . Pregnancy outcome in patients with raised blood glucose due to a heterozygous glucokinase gene mutation. Diabet Med 2009;26:14–18
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  106. ↵
    1. Sanyoura M,
    2. Letourneau L,
    3. Knight Johnson AE, et al
    . GCK-MODY in the US monogenic diabetes registry: description of 27 unpublished variants. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2019;151:231–236
    OpenUrl
  107. ↵
    1. De Franco E,
    2. Caswell R,
    3. Houghton JA,
    4. Iotova V,
    5. Hattersley AT,
    6. Ellard S
    . Analysis of cell-free fetal DNA for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis in a family with neonatal diabetes. Diabet Med 2017;34:582–585
    OpenUrl
  108. ↵
    1. Petrak F,
    2. Baumeister H,
    3. Skinner TC,
    4. Brown A,
    5. Holt RIG
    . Depression and diabetes: treatment and health-care delivery. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:472–485
    OpenUrl
  109. ↵
    1. Snoek FJ,
    2. Bremmer MA,
    3. Hermanns N
    . Constructs of depression and distress in diabetes: time for an appraisal. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:450–460
    OpenUrlPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Moulton CD,
    2. Pickup JC,
    3. Ismail K
    . The link between depression and diabetes: the search for shared mechanisms. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:461–471
    OpenUrl
  111. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . 5. Facilitating behavior change and well-being to improve health outcomes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care 2020;43(Suppl. 1):S48–S65
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. ↵
    1. Fisher L,
    2. Polonsky WH,
    3. Hessler D
    . Addressing diabetes distress in clinical care: a practical guide. Diabet Med 2019;36:803–812
    OpenUrl
  113. ↵
    1. Shields BM,
    2. Hicks S,
    3. Shepherd MH,
    4. Colclough K,
    5. Hattersley AT,
    6. Ellard S
    . Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY): how many cases are we missing? Diabetologia 2010;53:2504–2508
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  114. ↵
    1. Shepherd M,
    2. Colclough K,
    3. Ellard S,
    4. Hattersley AT
    . Ten years of the national genetic diabetes nurse network: a model for the translation of genetic information into clinical care. Clin Med (Lond) 2014;14:117–121
    OpenUrl
  115. ↵
    1. Owen KR
    . Monogenic diabetes in adults: what are the new developments? Curr Opin Genet Dev 2018;50:103–110
    OpenUrl
  116. ↵
    1. Poudel A,
    2. Zhou JY,
    3. Story D,
    4. Li L
    . Diabetes and associated cardiovascular complications in American Indians/Alaskan Natives: a review of risks and prevention strategies. J Diabetes Res 2018;2018:2742565
    OpenUrl
  117. ↵
    1. Al Busaidi N,
    2. Shanmugam P,
    3. Manoharan D
    . Diabetes in the Middle East: government health care policies and strategies that address the growing diabetes prevalence in the Middle East. Curr Diab Rep 2019;19:8
    OpenUrl
  118. ↵
    1. Meyer RJ
    . Precision medicine, diabetes, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1874–1878
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. ↵
    1. Naylor R
    . Economics of genetic testing for diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 2019;19:23
    OpenUrl
  120. ↵
    1. Fitipaldi H,
    2. McCarthy MI,
    3. Florez JC,
    4. Franks PW
    . A global overview of precision medicine in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2018;67:1911–1922
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. O’Brien RL,
    2. Brinster RL,
    3. Storb U
    . Somatic hypermutation of an immunoglobulin transgene in kappa transgenic mice. Nature 1987;326:405–409
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 43 (7)

In this Issue

July 2020, 43(7)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Precision Medicine in Diabetes: A Consensus Report From the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Precision Medicine in Diabetes: A Consensus Report From the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)
Wendy K. Chung, Karel Erion, Jose C. Florez, Andrew T. Hattersley, Marie-France Hivert, Christine G. Lee, Mark I. McCarthy, John J. Nolan, Jill M. Norris, Ewan R. Pearson, Louis Philipson, Allison T. McElvaine, William T. Cefalu, Stephen S. Rich, Paul W. Franks
Diabetes Care Jul 2020, 43 (7) 1617-1635; DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Precision Medicine in Diabetes: A Consensus Report From the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)
Wendy K. Chung, Karel Erion, Jose C. Florez, Andrew T. Hattersley, Marie-France Hivert, Christine G. Lee, Mark I. McCarthy, John J. Nolan, Jill M. Norris, Ewan R. Pearson, Louis Philipson, Allison T. McElvaine, William T. Cefalu, Stephen S. Rich, Paul W. Franks
Diabetes Care Jul 2020, 43 (7) 1617-1635; DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0022
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Rationale for Precision Medicine in Diabetes
    • The Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative
    • Precision Diabetes Medicine: What it is and What it is Not
    • Precision Diagnostics
    • Precision Therapeutics
    • Precision Approaches to Diabetes in Pregnancy
    • Patient-Centered Mental Health and Quality-of-Life Outcomes
    • Equity in Precision Diabetes Medicine
    • The Road to Implementation
    • Building Partnerships
    • Summary and Future Perspectives
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Diabetes Self-management Education and Support in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of PAs, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the American Pharmacists Association
  • Consensus Reports
Show more Consensus Reports

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Diabetes Education

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.