In the intervention setting, follow-up studies of alum-conjugated

In the intervention setting, follow-up studies of alum-conjugated glutamic acid decarboxylase immunization (GAD-Alum), after initial successful pilot data [29], have been disappointing at Phase II [30] and Phase III stages [12]; a secondary prevention Doramapimod purchase study is in progress (Table 1). New modalities of ASI have emerged, however, including peptide and DNA-based deliveries, in some cases associated with positive biomarker data [16, 31] and in the case of Diapep277, with

evidence of clinical effectiveness (see discussion above and Table 3). Full reporting of the proinsulin-DNA vaccine and Diapep277 Phase III studies are eagerly awaited. In terms of development, however, it is notable that, for example, in the intervention setting, there has been no attempt as yet to combine antigen with any other treatment modality (Fig. 2), despite encouraging preclinical

data [32, 33]. With the somewhat high number of failed clinical trials in type 1 diabetes in the past few years, it has become increasingly tempting to attribute some of the blame to animal models. One often hears remarks such as ‘animal models have misled us’ and the near-ubiquitous comment ‘mice are not humans’. Clearly, we are all aware that diabetes in various rodent models may only model in part how type 1 diabetes develops in humans. However, we would like to argue here that animal models have a key place in the clinical translation for therapeutic approaches in autoimmune disease overall, as long as they are used correctly, not selleck products over-interpreted

and analysed carefully. It should be helpful, therefore, to first take a closer look at the extent to which animal studies diverge from human trials. Several ASI trials in man have reported negative (or positive substudy) results (GAD-Alum, Montelukast Sodium oral insulin and intravenous insulin); have shown marginal effects (BayHill DNA vaccine, Diapep277); or were not powered to demonstrate efficacy, yet have not shown any strong clinical effects in established diabetes (adjuvanted insulin B-chain peptide, proinsulin peptide). Each trial is distinctly different and it is therefore worthwhile to look at the facts one by one. Subcutaneous administration of GAD-Alum was developed on the basis of earlier studies by several teams, which had all used GAD peptides to prevent diabetes in the non-obese diabetic (NOD) mouse spontaneous disease model [34, 35]. Others have since prevented type 1 diabetes successfully with oral GAD and in some cases GAD DNA vaccines also using other diabetes models [36]. A crucial difference between the human trial and all the preclinical studies is that immunization with GAD always worked to prevent diabetes, yet never after diabetes onset.

Comments are closed.