Cargando…

Barriers to Screening: An Analysis of Factors Impacting Screening for Type 1 Diabetes Prevention Trials

CONTEXT: Participants with stage 1 or 2 type 1 diabetes (T1D) qualify for prevention trials, but factors involved in screening for such trials are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with screening for T1D prevention trials. METHODS: This study included TrialNet Pathway to Pre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kinney, Mara, You, Lu, Sims, Emily K, Wherrett, Diane, Schatz, Desmond, Lord, Sandra, Krischer, Jeffrey, Russell, William E, Gottlieb, Peter A, Libman, Ingrid, Buckner, Jane, DiMeglio, Linda A, Herold, Kevan C, Steck, Andrea K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9891344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36741943
http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvad003
Descripción
Sumario:CONTEXT: Participants with stage 1 or 2 type 1 diabetes (T1D) qualify for prevention trials, but factors involved in screening for such trials are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with screening for T1D prevention trials. METHODS: This study included TrialNet Pathway to Prevention participants who were eligible for a prevention trial: oral insulin (TN-07, TN-20), teplizumab (TN-10), abatacept (TN-18), and oral hydroxychloroquine (TN-22). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine participant, site, and study factors at the time of prevention trial accrual. RESULTS: Screening rates for trials were: 50% for TN-07 (584 screened/1172 eligible), 9% for TN-10 (106/1249), 24% for TN-18 (313/1285), 17% for TN-20 (113/667), and 28% for TN-22 (371/1336). Younger age and male sex were associated with higher screening rates for prevention trials overall and for oral therapies. Participants with an offspring with T1D showed lower rates of screening for all trials and oral drug trials compared with participants with other first-degree relatives as probands. Site factors, including larger monitoring volume and US site vs international site, were associated with higher prevention trial screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: Clear differences exist between participants who screen for prevention trials and those who do not screen and between the research sites involved in prevention trial screening. Participant age, sex, and relationship to proband are significantly associated with prevention trial screening in addition to key site factors. Identifying these factors can facilitate strategic recruitment planning to support rapid and successful enrollment into prevention trials.