4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Effect of Ingested Interferon-α on β-Cell Function in Children With New-Onset Type 1 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 1250-1255

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc08-2029

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 DK062001-08, ZIA DK062001-11, ZIA DK062001-10, Z01 DK062001-09] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1 RR024148] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ingested human recombinant interferon-alpha (hrIFN-alpha) for presenation of beta-cell function in young patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Subjects aged 3-25 years in whom type 1 diabetes was diagnosed within 6 weeks of enrollment were randomly assigned to receive ingested hrIFN-alpha at 5,000 or 30,000 units or placebo once daily for 1 year. The primary outcome was change in C-peptide secretion after a mixed meal. RESULTS - Individuals in the placebo group (n = 30) lost 56 +/- 29% of their C-peptide secretion from 0 to 12 months, expressed as area under the curve (AUC) in response to a mixed meal. In contrast, children treated with hrIFN-alpha lost 29 +/- 54 and 48 +/- 35% (for 5,000 [n = 27] and 30,000 units [n = 31], respectively, P = 0.028, ANOVA adjusted for age, baseline C-peptide AUC, and study site). Bonferroni post hoc analyses for placebo versus 5,000 units and placebo versus 30,000 units demonstrated that the overall trend was deter-mined by the 5,000-unit treatment group. Adverse events occurred at similar rates in all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS - ingested hrIFN-alpha was safe at the doses used. Patients in the 5,000-unit hrIFN-alpha treatment group maintained more beta-cell function 1 year after study enrollment than individuals in the placebo group, whereas this effect was not observed in patients who received 30,000 units hrIFN-alpha. Further studies of low-dose ingested hrIFN-alpha in new-onset type 1 diabetes are needed to confirm this effect.

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

4.7
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