PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: The efficacy of islet autoantibody screening with or without genetic pre-screening strategies for the identification of presymptomatic type 1 diabetes.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Bonifacio, E.* ; Coelho, R.* ; Ewald, D.A.* ; Gemulla, G.* ; Hubmann, M.* ; Jarosz-Chobot, P.* ; Kohls, M. ; Kordonouri, O.* ; Lampasona, V.* ; Narendran, P.* ; Pociot, F.* ; Šumník, Z.* ; Szypowska, A.* ; Zapardiel-Gonzalo, J. ; Ziegler, A.-G.

The efficacy of islet autoantibody screening with or without genetic pre-screening strategies for the identification of presymptomatic type 1 diabetes.

Diabetologia 68, 1101-1107 (2025)

Verlagsversion

Forschungsdaten

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Hybrid

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

Early detection of type 1 diabetes, in its presymptomatic stage, offers significant clinical advantages, including treatment that can delay disease onset. Current screening focuses on identifying islet autoantibody positivity, with proposed optimal testing at ages 2, 6 and 10 years potentially achieving up to 80% sensitivity. However, challenges arise from participation rates and costs associated with multiple screenings. Genetic pre-screening has been suggested as a complementary strategy to target high-risk individuals prior to autoantibody testing, but its real-world benefits remain uncertain. Broad genetic selection strategies, based on family history, HLA typing or polygenic risk scores, can identify subsets of the population at elevated risk. However, these approaches face issues like low recall rates, socioeconomic biases and limited applicability across diverse ancestries. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness and infrastructure requirements of integrating genetic testing into routine healthcare remain significant hurdles. The combined use of genetic and autoantibody testing could improve predictive value, especially with innovations like point-of-care genetic testing. Yet, the ultimate success of any screening programme depends less on specific strategies and more on maximising public and healthcare-provider engagement, ensuring high participation, and addressing socioeconomic and demographic disparities. Digital-health infrastructure may play a crucial role in improving recall rates and maintaining follow-up adherence. In conclusion, while repeated islet autoantibody screening remains the most effective standalone approach, conducting genetic screening prior to islet autoantibody testing may be practical in certain contexts, provided that sufficient resources and equitable strategies are employed. Public engagement and robust infrastructure are essential to realising the full potential of early type 1 diabetes detection programmes.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

10.200

0.000