ReviewDiabetologia2025
Perspectives on prevention of type 1 diabetes and heterogeneities.
Review in Diabetologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preventing type 1 diabetes remains a significant challenge but ongoing efforts are bringing us closer to this goal. This article discusses some implications of heterogeneity and chance in relation to prevention of type 1 diabetes, particularly regarding interpretation of evidence and planning of future trials. Using simulations, I illustrate uncertainties in efficacy estimates in prevention trials with time-to-event endpoints, using the TN10 teplizumab trial as an example. I emphasise that risk heterogeneity does not equate to treatment effect heterogeneity. When factors modifying efficacy are taken into account, robust identification of treatment effect heterogeneity may require sample sizes approximately four times larger than those needed to determine overall efficacy in certain scenarios. Efficiency of prevention trials can be increased using 2 × 2 factorial designs investigating two treatment options. I also simulate statistical power in exploratory studies involving multiple testing with different strategies for handling potential type 1 diabetes endotypes. If endotypes are defined as subtypes of type 1 diabetes-related phenotypes with at least partially unique risk factors, it becomes clear that we should aim to discover actionable aetiological factors that are not endotype-specific. Subjective judgements and pragmatism will influence whether and how a prevention trial is planned. Current approaches target high-risk individuals, which reduces the required number of trial participants but increases the cost of identifying trial participants. A prevention trial targeting infants in the general population with a multivalent antiviral vaccine will likely need over 50,000 participants, depending on circumstances and assumptions. While such a trial is conceivable, it would demand robust safety data before initiation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.