Skip to main content

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.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Overcoming barriers to early disease intervention

Nature Biotechnology volume 38, pages 669–673 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Although secondary prevention has been a longstanding healthcare imperative, in many cases, trials using this approach have not improved health outcomes2,3,4. One reason why these have failed is because the interventions often came too late in the disease process. For instance, even though a randomized trial of the small-molecule β-secretase 1 inhibitor verubecestat was targeted to prodromal Alzheimer’s disease patients at high risk for progression, it failed to meet its endpoints, likely because of mistimed (that is, late) intervention. In this trial, the participants already had cognitive symptoms of mild-to-moderate dementia due to the presence of pathological signs of elevated β-amyloid deposits in their brains; thus, the intervention was probably neither sufficiently effective nor early enough in the disease process to have a chance of therapeutic success. Notably, a worse clinical outcome was observed in the verubecestat group than in the placebo group.

As a general rule, as diseases advance progressively over time, the combined action of known and unknown causal factors damage the integrity of critical biological networks motifs (redundant feedback and feed-forward loops)5. Gradually, this disrupts the natural flow of essential cell signaling and leads to a loss of biological function, which ultimately manifests itself in overt disease phenotypes and symptoms. Over time, comorbidities and inefficient polypharmacy treatments take over, and organ systems of the human body undergo irreversible, progressive destruction of biological network motifs. Thus, patients lose their physiologic reserve and succumb to underlying conditions, without the ability to restore health. From a physiological standpoint, for individuals at a high risk of developing disease, it makes sense to act at a point sufficiently early in disease processes when biological network motifs still retain sufficient integrity and function to respond to interventions and prevent further decline — or even reverse it.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Differences in primary prevention, secondary prevention and early disease intervention, depicting target groups, goals and examples for each approach.
Fig. 2: Hypothetical illustrative example of integrated early disease intervention paradigm.

References

  1. Anonymous. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 197 (2019).

  2. Bluestone, J. A., Herold, K. & Eisenbarth, G. Nature 464, 1293–1300 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 Diabetes Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1685–1691 (2002).

  4. Egan, M. F. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 1408–1420 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Demongeot, J. et al. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 10, 4437–4473 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Foust, K. D. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 271–274 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Groen, E. J. N., Talbot, K. & Gillingwater, T. H. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 14, 214–224 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dominguez, E. et al. Hum. Mol. Genet. 20, 681–693 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. US Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/zolgensma (2019).

  10. Hickey, R. D. et al. Cell Transplant. 28, 79–88 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Herold, K. C. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 603–613 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Korde, N. et al. JAMA Oncol. 1, 746–754 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Landgren, O. et al. Leukemia 33, 2127–2143 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhao, A. L. et al. Cancer Manag. Res. 11, 5599–5611 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pentland, A. Social Physics Vol. 1 (Penguin, 2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our perspective has benefited from a global network of colleagues. In particular, it has been challenged, informed and enriched by conversations with many people, including R. Hendricks, D. Blumenthal, B. Wiegand, K. Wildenhaus, J. Hedrick, S. Brady, G. Pigino, J. M. Peyrin, P. Prieto, J. Fleming and A. Zarur.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Connection Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    H. Hugo Caicedo & Alex Pentland

  2. Corporate Sustainability and Innovation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    H. Hugo Caicedo

  3. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Daniel A. Hashimoto

  4. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Daniel A. Hashimoto

  5. Materials Engineering, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

    Julio C. Caicedo

  6. Technology and Operations Management, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, USA

    Gary P. Pisano

Authors
  1. H. Hugo Caicedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel A. Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julio C. Caicedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alex Pentland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gary P. Pisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Hugo Caicedo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

D.A.H. consults for Johnson & Johnson, Verily Life Sciences, and Worrell. He has received research support from Olympus. A.P. is on the Advisory Boards of Pear Therapeutics. G.P.P. consults for Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Tolero, and serves on the Board of Directors of Axcella Health and Celixir.

Additional information

Editorial note: This article has been peer reviewed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caicedo, H.H., Hashimoto, D.A., Caicedo, J.C. et al. Overcoming barriers to early disease intervention. Nat Biotechnol 38, 669–673 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0550-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0550-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research