Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Recent years have seen significant strides forward in precision medicine for diabetes, a chronic disease affecting over 400 million people and causing around 2 million deaths per year globally. Precision diabetes medicine aims to exploit the growing volume of clinical and molecular data available to clinicians to optimize patient diagnosis and prognostication, disease prevention, and treatment selection. Patient-tailored prevention and care is being increasingly enabled by an improved understanding of the genetic and environmental contributors to disease risk and progression; emerging highly efficacious therapies; digital technologies to aid glucose control; and a better appreciation of the importance of patient-centered outcomes and quality of life.
This Collection includes a series of systematic reviews published by the ADA/EASD Precision Medicine in Diabetes consortium, where an international network of clinicians and scientists assessed the evidence available in the published peer-reviewed literature on precision diabetes medicine and identified barriers in and opportunities for its implementation. Each systematic review has a different focus on prevention, diagnostics, prognostics or treatment for type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, monogenic diabetes or gestational diabetes mellitus. Evidence collected for the preparation of the systematic reviews was used to support the creation of a consensus report on gaps and opportunities in the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine, published in Nature Medicine.
The Collection is also open for submissions of primary research on the topic of precision medicine in diabetes, from any authors working in this area. We welcome clinical and translational studies focused on precision prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of all types of diabetes. Other article types such as Reviews, Perspectives, and Comments that add significant insight will also be considered for inclusion in the Collection. All submissions will be subject to the same review process and editorial standards as regular Communications Medicine Articles.
Thirunavukkarasu et al. discuss how standard lifestyle interventions prove ineffective in preventing type 2 diabetes in individuals with isolated impaired fasting glucose, a highly prevalent prediabetes phenotype globally. They propose low-calorie diets as a promising strategy for diabetes prevention in this high-risk population.
Takele et al. conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of intervention characteristics on preventing gestational diabetes. Group or healthcare facility-based physical activity interventions are found to be more effective in preventing gestational diabetes than community-based interventions.
Ahmad, Lim, Morieri, Tam et al perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomarkers, genetic markers, and risk scores for prediction of cardiovascular outcomes in Type 2 diabetes. A few prognostic markers are identified that provide incremental predictive utility beyond established cardiovascular risk factors.
Semnani-Azad et al. review the evidence on prognostic factors that predict cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes for women, and cardiometabolic profile in offspring subsequent to gestational diabetes. The evidence was of low quality, but some maternal characteristics were predictive of unfavourable outcomes in women and their offspring.
Francis et al. perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate studies comparing perinatal outcomes among individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Their review and post hoc analysis find that maternal preconception weight and non-glucose-dependent biochemical markers could be a precision diagnostic approach to reducing variability in clinical outcomes following treatment.
Bodhini et al. systematically review the evidence on sociodemographic, clinical, behavioral, and molecular factors that modify the effect of interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention. The certainty of evidence that such factors modify the effectiveness of lifestyle and behavioral interventions is low to very low.
Lim et al. perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify participant characteristics associated with response to gestational diabetes prevention. Characteristics such as BMI, polycystic ovary syndrome and being in the preconception phase could determine responses to certain preventive interventions.
Semple et al. review the literature to assess the effects of pharmacologic or surgical interventions in monogenic insulin resistance when stratified by genotype. The evidence guiding genotype-specific treatment of monogenic insulin resistance is of low to very low quality, but suggestive of benefits of metreleptin, thiazolidinediones, and rhIGF-1.
Felton et al. conducted a systematic review to evaluate studies testing disease-modifying therapies and features linked to treatment response for type 1 diabetes prevention. While the quality of prevention and intervention trials is found to be high, precision analyses on factors associated with treatment response are of poorer quality.
Misra, Wagner et al. systematically review if strategies to subclassify type 2 diabetes (T2D) are associated with high quality evidence and patient outcomes. Cluster-based stratification yields T2D subtypes that associate with outcomes, suggesting subclassification could have future clinical use.
Jacobsen, Sherr et al. evaluate the utility of novel technologies in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Their systematic review finds technologies such as continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pumps, and decision support tools improve important measures (e.g., HbA1c, time in range, quality of life) allowing precision-directed uptake of technology.
Benham, Gingras, McLennan, Most, Yamamoto, Aiken et al. conduct two systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate whether a precision-based medicine approach can be adopted to improve the clinical management of gestational diabetes (GDM). They find some precision markers that may improve the treatment course of GDM but further research is needed.
Murphy, Kevin, Pollin et al. perform a systematic review of the evidence on the criteria used to select individuals with diabetes for genetic testing and of the evidence for the optimal methods for variant detection in genes involved in monogenic diabetes. Based on the findings the authors make recommendations and highlight challenges for the field.
Young, McInnes, Massey et al. systematically review published studies evaluating features associated with heterogenous treatment effects for SGLT2-inhibitor and GLP1-receptor agonist therapies in people with type 2 diabetes. They find limited current evidence on treatment effect heterogeneity, for glycaemic, cardiovascular and renal outcomes.
A systematic review of evidence, across the key pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, outlines milestones that need to be met to enable the broad clinical implementation of precision medicine in diabetes care.