Cited by 64Diabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and ResearchStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The use of intermediate endpoints in the design of type 1 diabetes prevention trials

Open access
the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group, Krischer, Jeffrey P.·2013·Diabetologia

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis This paper presents a rationale for the selection of intermediate endpoints to be used in the design of type 1 diabetes prevention clinical trials.Methods Relatives of individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes were enrolled on the TrialNet Natural History Study and screened for diabetes-related autoantibodies. Those with two or more such autoantibodies were analysed with respect to increased HbA1c, decreased C-peptide following an OGTT, or abnormal OGTT values as intermediate markers of disease progression.Results Over 2 years, a 10% increase in HbA1c, and a 20% or 30% decrease in C-peptide from baseline, or progression to abnormal OGTT, occurred with a frequency between 20% and 41%. The 3- to 5-year risk of type 1 diabetes following each intermediate endpoint was high, namely 47% to 84%. The lower the incidence of the endpoint being reached, the higher the risk of diabetes. A diabetes prevention trial using these intermediate endpoints would require a 30% to 50% smaller sample size than one using type 1 diabetes as the endpoint.Conclusions/interpretation The use of an intermediate endpoint in diabetes prevention is based on the generally held view of disease progression from initial occurrence of autoantibodies through successive immunological and metabolic changes to manifest type 1 diabetes. Thus, these markers are suitable for randomised phase 2 trials, which can more rapidly screen promising new therapies, allowing them to be subsequently confirmed in definitive phase 3 trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-013-2960-7

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • At stage 2 of type 1 diabetes, there is ~60% risk by 2 years and ~75% risk within 5 years of developing symptomatic type 1 diabetes.

    “At stage 2 of the disease, there is 60% risk by 2 years and 75% risk within 5 years of developing symptomatic type 1 diabetes (57,58).”

    From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Results (page unavailable) report a 74% risk of type 1 diabetes four years after confirmed dysglycaemia, supporting the general point that risk is high after this intermediate stage. They do not report a 60% risk of symptomatic diabetes at two years or a 75% risk at five years; for participants who reached confirmed dysglycaemia within two years, the reported proportion diagnosed by year five is 96%. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • At stage 2 of type 1 diabetes, there is 60% risk by 2 years and 75% risk within 5 years of developing a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

    “At stage 2 of the disease, there is 60% risk by 2 years and 75% risk within 5 years of developing a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (55,56).”

    From 2. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes-2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Results report a 74% risk of type 1 diabetes four years after confirmed dysglycaemia, close to the claimed 75% but at a different time point. They do not report a 60% risk of clinical diagnosis at two years; the two-year figure for this group is a 41% risk of progressing from normal glucose tolerance to dysglycaemia. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group, & Krischer, J. P.
Affiliations
University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Krischer, Jeffrey P.
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2013-06-07
Volume
56
Issue
9
Pages
1919-1924
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2151627127
Cited by
64
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000093, 5ul1rr031986-02, UL1TR001108, UL1TR001085, UL1TR000005)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01-DK-084565, U01DK061040, U01DK085461, U01DK085505, U01DK085499, U01DK061055, U01DK061036, U01DK061010, U01DK061058, U01DK061034, U01DK061042, HHSN267200800019C, U01DK085463, U01DK085453, UC4DK117009, U01DK061041, U01DK085466, UC4DK097835, U01DK085509, U01 DK-061016)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (HHSN267200800019C)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR029890, UL1RR024131, M01RR000400, UL1-RR031986, UL1RR025744, UL1RR024153, UL1RR024982, UL1RR025761, M01-RR00400, UL1RR024975, UL1RR024139, UL1RR025780)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
type 1 diabetes prevention, intermediate endpoints, disease progression, autoantibodies, HbA1c, C-peptide, oral glucose tolerance test, sample size determination
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Autoantibodies, Blood Glucose, C-Peptide, Child, Child, Preschool, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review