4.5 Article

Negativation of type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase and insulin in children treated with oral calcitriol

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 344-348

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1753-0407.12023

关键词

anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 antibody; calcitriol; insulin autoantibodies; prevention trial; type 1 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Based on recent knowledge of the possible involvement of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and the results of its administration in animal models, we conducted a clinical trial by treating high-risk children, positive for T1D autoantibodies, with oral calcitriol. Methods: The present prospective trial was performed on 12 children (1.5-13 years old) who were investigated for the potential risk of T1D because of an already diagnosed association of celiac disease and autoimmune thyroiditis (four girls), autoimmune thyroiditis at a very young age (two girls, two boys), a diagnosis of T1D in siblings (two boys), and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT; one boy, one girl). Serum autoantibody levels, including islet cell autoantibodies, anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) 65, insulin autoantibodies (IAA), and anti-tyrosine phosphatase, and markers of calcium metabolism were evaluated prior to and at 6-monthly intervals after the initiation of 0.25 mg/day calcitriol for 1-3 years. Results: In all children, persistent negativation of the anti-GAD65 antibodies and IAA was observed within 0.4-2.1 years. Of the two children with IGT, the boy proved to have maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY) 2, whereas the glycemic profile was normalized in the girl. Conclusions: Despite the small number of subjects and the absence of a control group in the present study, 0.25 mg/day calcitriol effectively negativates anti-GAD65 antibodies and IAA after a median time of 6 months. This simple, safe, and low-cost strategy may prove effective in the prevention of T1D in the future.

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

4.5
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