HAMBURG, Germany — An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.
“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) co-chair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.
The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”
Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.
Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”
A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented today at the annual EASD meeting. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
Asked to comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, United Kingdom, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”
However, Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”
Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
Currently, a Dearth of Data
Even just within just diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Franks told Medscape Medical News, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”
Ideally, to make this effort current, Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”
In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.
This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
“Studying Diverse Populations Benefits Everyone”
An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”
That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in Diabetes and Endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.
Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”
And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”
Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk A/S, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies.
Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, sanofi-aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie AG/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp.
Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation (UK).
Annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Presented October 5, 2023
Nature Medicine. Published online October 5, 2023. Full text
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. Published October 4, 2023. Series
Miriam E. Tucker is a freelance journalist based in the Washington, DC area. She is a regular contributor to Medscape, with other work appearing in the Washington Post, NPR’s Shots blog, and Diabetes Forecast magazine. She is on Twitter @MiriamETucker.
For more Medscape Diabetes and Endocrinology news, follow us on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook
Source: Read Full Article
