Immunotherapeutic agents in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

A Bayesian model for combining standardized mean differences and odds ratios in the same meta-analysis

In meta-analysis practice, researchers frequently face studies that report the same outcome differently, such as a continuous variable (e.g., scores for rating depression) or a binary variable (e.g., counts of patients with depression dichotomized by certain latent and unreported depression scores). For combining these two types of studies in the same analysis, a simple conversion method has been widely used to handle standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). This conventional method uses a linear function connecting the SMD and log OR; it assumes logistic distributions for (latent) continuous measures. However, the normality assumption is more commonly used for continuous measures, and the conventional method may be inaccurate when effect sizes are large or cutoff values for dichotomizing binary events are extreme (leading to rare events). This article proposes a Bayesian hierarchical model to synthesize SMDs and ORs without using the conventional conversion method. This model assumes exact likelihoods for continuous and binary outcome measures, which account for full uncertainties in the synthesized results. We performed simulation studies to compare the performance of the conventional and Bayesian methods in various settings. The Bayesian method generally produced less biased results with smaller mean squared errors and higher coverage probabilities than the conventional method in most cases. Nevertheless, this superior performance depended on the normality assumption for continuous measures; the Bayesian method could lead to nonignorable biases for non-normal data. In addition, we used two case studies to illustrate the proposed Bayesian method in real-world settings.

Antigen-based immunotherapies do not prevent progression of recent-onset autoimmune diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of antigen-based immunotherapies in tertiary prevention of autoimmune diabetes. We searched for randomised controlled trials testing antigen-based immunotherapies in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes or latent autoimmune diabetes of adults in MEDLINE, COCHRANE and EMBASE databases, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of pertinent records. Primary outcomes were fasting and stimulated C-peptide (after glucagon or mixed meal stimulation). Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), daily insulin needs and incidence of any or severe hypoglycaemic events or severe adverse events were secondary outcomes. Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference in fasting [weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.01 nmol/L; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.09, 0.11; I ² = 73 %] or mixed meal stimulated C-peptide (WMD 0.02 nmol/L/min; 95 % CI -0.08, 0.12; I ² = 50 %) compared with placebo. Glucagon stimulated C-peptide was maintained higher (WMD 0.13 nmol/L/min; 95 % CI 0.05, 0.21; I ² = 0 %) in patients treated with Diapep277. Moreover, there was no change in daily insulin needs (WMD 0.02 IU/kg; 95 % CI -0.04, 0.09; I ² = 51 %) or HbA_1c (WMD -0.06 %; 95 % CI -0.35, 0.23; I ² = 42 %) vs. placebo. Finally, there was no effect on the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events or overall serious adverse events [risk ratio 0.94, 95 % CI 0.62, 1.41; I ² = 0 % and 0.87; 95 % CI 0.53, 1.44; I ² = 0 %, respectively). Antigen-based immunotherapies are not effective in preventing the progression of autoimmune diabetes in newly diagnosed patients.

Pretransplantation GAD-autoantibody status to guide prophylactic antibody induction therapy in simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Daclizumab and antithymocyte globulin (ATG) have been shown to reduce allograft rejection. We assessed the safety and efficacy of daclizumab or ATG prophylaxis in combination with triple immunotherapy in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPKT) recipients.

METHODS

Thirty-nine type 1 diabetic patients scheduled for primary SPKT were randomized to receive prophylactic therapy with either daclizumab or ATG. A group of 27 patients without prophylactic antibodies was used for retrospective comparison. All patients received cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil and gradually tapered prednisone. Autoantibodies and cellular autoreactivity were measured to assess recurrent autoreactive responses.

RESULTS

Baseline and transplant characteristics were comparable among groups. Both daclizumab and ATG therapy resulted in a significant reduction in acute rejection episodes. The incidence of rejection episodes was significantly higher in pretransplantation GAD autoantibody-positive daclizumab-treated recipients compared with GAD autoantibody-negative or ATG-treated recipients. IA-2 islet autoantibodies showed no association with rejection. There were no significant differences between the groups for in vitro autoreactivity, clinical outcome, or functional parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Daclizumab or ATG combined with a maintenance immunosuppressive regime consisting of cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisolone were well tolerated and equally effective in reducing the incidence of acute rejection episodes in SPKT recipients. Up to 3 years, no adverse sequelae of the immunoprophylaxis or clinical and ex vivo recurrent autoimmunity were observed. We propose that the pretransplantation existence of GAD65 autoantibodies serves as a marker guiding the choice for prophylactic therapy in pancreas transplantation.

Otelixizumab: a novel agent for the prevention of type 1 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes mellitus is a chronic, progressive autoimmune disorder linked to numerous genetic and environmental factors. Insulin is the only treatment and preventative strategies do not currently exist. An obvious need exists to develop a safe regimen that suppresses the progression of the disease.

AREAS COVERED

A MEDLINE search (1966-June 2011) was conducted for English-language articles using the terms 'otelixizumab', 'anti-CD3 antibody' and 'prevention of type 1 diabetes mellitus'. Relevant literature on otelixizumab, an anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, currently in Phase III clinical trials for prevention of T1DM is discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Studies suggest that a monoclonal antibody directed against CD3 mitigates the deterioration in insulin production and decreases the rise in insulin requirement in recent onset T1DM for up to five years. The benefit was most pronounced in younger patients and in those with higher initial β-cell function. Adverse effects were significant but transient. Otelixizumab shows great promise but leaves room for improvement. Results of ongoing trials will help define its role in the prevention of T1DM.

Teplizumab for treatment of type 1 diabetes (Protégé study): 1-year results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Findings of small studies have suggested that short treatments with anti-CD3 monoclonal antibodies that are mutated to reduce Fc receptor binding preserve β-cell function and decrease insulin needs in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the safety and efficacy of one such antibody, teplizumab.

METHODS

In this 2-year trial, patients aged 8-35 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes for 12 weeks or fewer were enrolled and treated at 83 clinical centres in North America, Europe, Israel, and India. Participants were allocated (2:1:1:1 ratio) by an interactive telephone system, according to computer-generated block randomisation, to receive one of three regimens of teplizumab infusions (14-day full dose, 14-day low dose, or 6-day full dose) or placebo at baseline and at 26 weeks. The Protégé study is still underway, and patients and study staff remain masked through to study closure. The primary composite outcome was the percentage of patients with insulin use of less than 0·5 U/kg per day and glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1C)) of less than 6·5% at 1 year. Analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00385697.

FINDINGS

763 patients were screened, of whom 516 were randomised to receive 14-day full-dose teplizumab (n=209), 14-day low-dose teplizumab (n=102), 6-day full-dose teplizumab (n=106), or placebo (n=99). Two patients in the 14-day full-dose group and one patient in the placebo group did not start treatment, so 513 patients were eligible for efficacy analyses. The primary outcome did not differ between groups at 1 year: 19·8% (41/207) in the 14-day full-dose group; 13·7% (14/102) in the 14-day low-dose group; 20·8% (22/106) in the 6-day full-dose group; and 20·4% (20/98) in the placebo group. 5% (19/415) of patients in the teplizumab groups were not taking insulin at 1 year, compared with no patients in the placebo group at 1 year (p=0·03). Across the four study groups, similar proportions of patients had adverse events (414/417 [99%] in the teplizumab groups vs 98/99 [99%] in the placebo group) and serious adverse events (42/417 [10%] vs 9/99 [9%]). The most common clinical adverse event in the teplizumab groups was rash (220/417 [53%] vs 20/99 [20%] in the placebo group).

INTERPRETATION

Findings of exploratory analyses suggest that future studies of immunotherapeutic intervention with teplizumab might have increased success in prevention of a decline in β-cell function (measured by C-peptide) and provision of glycaemic control at reduced doses of insulin if they target patients early after diagnosis of diabetes and children.

FUNDING

MacroGenics, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and Eli Lilly.

Noninsulin pharmacological management of type 1 diabetes mellitus

The injectable nature and other shortcomings of insulin have stimulated interest in studying the noninsulin pharmacological therapies to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic literature review of noninsulin pharmacological therapies for the management of T1DM. For this, the following PubMed search was conducted: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/therapy"[Mesh]

LIMITS

Review Sort by: Publication Date. After applying various inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 63 studies were reviewed. Based on this review, noninsulin pharmacological therapies can be divided into following classes: (1) Insulin-sensitizing agents (biguanides and thiazolidinediones), (2) gastrointestinal nutrient absorption modulators (α-Glucosidase inhibitors and amylin), (3) immunotherapeutic agents, (4) incretin-based therapies, (5) recombinant human insulin-like growth factors, and (6) other promising therapeutics. Some of these are already used either as monotherapy or adjuvant to insulin, whereas, to manage T1DM, the benefits and risks of the others are still under evaluation. Nonetheless, insulin still remains the cornerstone to manage the T1DM.