4.8 Article

GAD65 Antigen Therapy in Recently Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 366, 期 5, 页码 433-442

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107096

关键词

-

资金

  1. Diamyd Medical
  2. Swedish Child Diabetes Foundation (Barndiabetesfonden)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The 65-kD isoform of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD65) is a major autoantigen in type 1 diabetes. We hypothesized that alum-formulated GAD65 (GAD-alum) can preserve beta-cell function in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes. Methods We studied 334 patients, 10 to 20 years of age, with type 1 diabetes, fasting C-peptide levels of more than 0.3 ng per milliliter (0.1 nmol per liter), and detectable serum GAD65 autoantibodies. Within 3 months after diagnosis, patients were randomly assigned to receive one of three study treatments: four doses of GAD-alum, two doses of GAD-alum followed by two doses of placebo, or four doses of placebo. The primary outcome was the change in the stimulated serum C-peptide level (after a mixed-meal tolerance test) between the baseline visit and the 15-month visit. Secondary outcomes included the glycated hemoglobin level, mean daily insulin dose, rate of hypoglycemia, and fasting and maximum stimulated C-peptide levels. Results The stimulated C-peptide level declined to a similar degree in all study groups, and the primary outcome at 15 months did not differ significantly between the combined active-drug groups and the placebo group (P=0.10). The use of GAD-alum as compared with placebo did not affect the insulin dose, glycated hemoglobin level, or hypoglycemia rate. Adverse events were infrequent and mild in the three groups, with no significant differences. Conclusions Treatment with GAD-alum did not significantly reduce the loss of stimulated C peptide or improve clinical outcomes over a 15-month period. (Funded by Diamyd Medical and the Swedish Child Diabetes Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00723411.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据