The latest T1D content
Research that matters
Our daily questions
Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
The type 1 diabetes (T1D) community has collectively identified a need for general population autoantibody screening. In response, a report by Ross and Altimus, Type 1 Diabetes Autoantibody Screening: A Roadmap for Pediatric Policy Implementation, was generated from the Milken Institute’s Center for Strategic Philanthropy (CSP), and funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.
The CSP conducted an in-depth analysis of preventive policies, T1D autoantibody screening, and familial screening. This resulted in a comprehensive report illustrating the importance of building an evidence base for pediatric, general population testing for T1D autoantibodies, and blood-based biomarkers that precede clinical diabetes.
Without general population testing, the majority of people aren’t identified prior to diagnosis, as approximately 85% of people living with T1D have no family history of the autoimmune disease.
At present, there are no supportive recommendations or policies surrounding clinical care for this testing, nor approved therapies focused on preventing or delaying T1D (teplizumab is currently under FDA review) — or curing it. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) currently recommends screening of family members in the context of research and clinical trials.
In order to advance this research, the identification of more autobantibody-positive individuals is essential. By providing an implementation roadmap with goals, objectives, and actionable steps, this report will help the T1D community to reach short and long-term goals, together.
In this interview with Anne Koralova, Ph.D., Program Officer for the Helmsley Charitable Trust’s Type 1 Diabetes Program, we discuss the Milken report and the future of autoantibody screening for T1D.
Please tell T1D Exchange readers about yourself.
I’m a Program Officer in the Helmsley T1D Program and I work in our prevention portfolio.
What do you think the largest hurdle is for general population screening?
I think the largest hurdle is the general public’s understanding of what T1D is, the burden, the difficulty of the disease, even how it compares to type 2 diabetes. There’s so little understanding of the disease outside of the T1D community. And this is a problem, because if you don’t see the burden, why would you care about preventing it and screening for it?
What is unique about this report?
What’s really great about this report is the bringing together of different types of information. On one side there’s the clinical research (state of the field), while on the other, there’s policy. This is so important, because for policy to change, you need data and evidence.
This hasn’t been done before [for islet autoantibody screening], and so from the report point of view, this is what’s really impactful. It’s bringing different perspectives about policy and clinical research together — with tangible recommendations on how to move forward.
Can you talk about the timeline associated with these changes?
To make significant changes in these spaces, it takes a long time. Will we see broader screening before 10 years? Yes, I believe so. But will we see comprehensive (everyone’s getting it) screening in 10 years? Honestly, 10 years seems slightly optimistic because of everything that needs to go into it. We’ll see wider screening from a piecemeal point of view — and as decisions are made about teplizumab approval and availability, it could possibly accelerate it, but I don’t think much faster.
Has an age for screening been determined?
This is a tricky question, because you have to balance practical, feasible screening, versus what is known scientifically about disease progression. “Magic times” to screen aren’t known, but more data is being generated in this area. There are screening ages that might be capable of catching more positive individuals, but this isn’t agreed upon by everyone.
Can you discuss the step-wise approach to screening?
A stepwise approach would be establishing recommendations based on familial screening being the standard of care first, and secondarily expanding to the general population. There’s a little bit of a tension with that, because it makes it seem that only family members should be screened, but most people developing diabetes are outside of the first- or second-degree familial relationship.
However, starting with family members is good, because they’re at high-risk, so they’re going to benefit more on a population level. We can also generate data from familial screening that can then be applied to the general population, from an outcomes point of view.
Do you have any additional thoughts about this report?
It’s important to remember that, depending on the study, 30 to 60% of children who develop T1D are diagnosed in DKA, and studies correlate DKA at the time of diagnosis with worse long-term glycemic control and outcomes.
For us, the screening is about providing the best clinical care. Whether that’s therapeutic (giving a drug), or not, we believe that identifying people in the early stages of disease, giving them the right support, education, monitoring — and the avoidance of DKA — are valuable treatments.
Future therapies that can delay disease onset will be game changing.
We believe that this is a really important topic, so you will probably see additional work spring off of this report. This is such a special moment in time, that we want to capture the momentum and keep going with it. As a program, we’re very committed to this area and we believe that this work will continue.
11 Comments
The Future of T1D Autoantibody Screening
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I can see that genetic screening would be helpful to research & future of treatment/prevention of T1D. Respectfully I text that I have strong doubts that the general population would cooperate with genetic screening for T1D markers. I base this opinion on what I consider the irrational backlash against COVID vaccinations. Conspiracy theorists would have a field day with genetic testing.
I truly believe that screening young for a baseline and later will flag more T1D patients for early intervention. The problem is cost and will insurance pay for testing without some sort of diagnostic proof. Looking back I had some red flags, but the only tests I received were fasting and it showed normal. When my symptoms became undeniable I finally got a diagnosis. They assumed based on BG numbers that I was probably T1D, but wasn’t until I was on my third Endocrinologist that an autoantibody test was ordered. It was positive. I had to redo the test for Medicare almost 30 years later, again positive, surprise.
Adults should also be screened. Too many adults who develop T1 or LADA are misdiagnosed as T2 and denied insulin. They have to fight for the antibody tests and the correct diagnosis.
Korolova says there is a lack of understanding about T1. The most egregious is the mistaken belief that T1= little kids, when half of those diagnosed are over 30. Mary Tyler Moore, Theresa May, James Norton, Adam Duvall, etc.
Yes. Great point!
Agree!
I am an RN,CDE retired with one of two daughters, who are also Type 1. I THINK SCREENING at age 15 and 16 would be a good place to start screening for those who have Type 1 in their family. It would be good to coincide with immunizations for school beginning. WHEN I was diagnosed at age 34, no one even thought it was possible I was Type 1. I being an RN with brothers who had Type 1, insisted on the use of insulin, not pills.
Sorry ages 5 and 16
I thought that the FDA said no on Teplizumab? I remember when it was still called hOKT-3gamma1, a decade-and-a-half-odd years ago. (*) As for pumps – I use Loop with Omnipod, so can’t move to Dash. Maybe the Tidepool Loop project will get FDA “clearance” or whatever some point in the next year or three. (See * again) (Or I could figure out how to hack the DASH receiver, disassemble whatever the software is in, reverse-engineer how the BLE/other encryption works, and write another
(*) Damn FDA bureaucracy – takes at least that off the 20-year “patent clock” (orphan drug marketing exclusion period not-withstanding). That adds to the cost. And the FDA is not guaranteed to approve in a “timely” manner (insert whatever fluid bureaucratic definition of “timely”). That adds risk for the companies, not to mention (possible) cost if the FDA decides to demana “just another tenth-or-quarter billion-dollar trial” (see “female Viagra” case – I think they wanted another Phase 3 trial). *That* risk adds to cost.
And politicians wonder why drugs cost so much? Look in the damn mirror, FDA-making politicos! God help us if another pandemic pops up (or “Covid 2.0”) – somehow I think Biden would *not* do an all-hands-on-deck “Transwarp Speed” project.
As for the mirror, it would appear yours only shows one tree, neglecting altogether an entire forest of red-wood-sized giants of a dense and anfractuous nature. Those would include “politicians” who do not “wonder” but “determine.” Those would include pharmacy benefit managers who did not even exist 20 years ago. Those would include the pharmacy industry which ensures the legal table is tilted sharply in their direction. Those would include the insurance industry that in other countries than the US add zero to medical costs. Those would include the strange mixture of for-profit, not-for-profit, and non-profit individual hospitals in the industry whose secret pricing systems would put the CIA to shame. Those would include the drug-store industry that wheels and deals with all of the above, not to the individual patient’s advantage. Those would include the legal profession that continually ensures many of the above being obscene, but legal.
Ms. Doskicz has done an admirable job at presenting a complex issue. You, sir, have ignored giant oaks and red woods. Too bad. Trees are wonderful.
I myself have antibodies. Unknown when they will release and become active.
I was diagnosed with T1D 48 years & 10 months ago. I have experienced many changes along the way. I used a Medtronic pump with a Medtronic sensor. I experience many lows & some highs but my normals out weighs both highs & lows. When I was 18, I was diagnosed my blood sugar was 892, I was almost blind. I was checking into the hospital for surgery. I was in extreme pain & my limited vision was my main concern. Through my 48 years the T1D world has changed so much, I am amazed at the lengths of products & technology has changed my world & the others that have experienced this journey. I can’t wait to see what co,es along next!