| Literature DB >> 19808924 |
Kristina I Rother1, Lisa M Spain, Robert A Wesley, Benigno J Digon, Alain Baron, Kim Chen, Patric Nelson, H-Michael Dosch, Jerry P Palmer, Barbara Brooks-Worrell, Michael Ring, David M Harlan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In patients with long-standing type 1 diabetes, we investigated whether improved beta-cell function can be achieved by combining intensive insulin therapy with agents that may 1) promote beta-cell growth and/or limit beta-cell apoptosis and 2) weaken the anti-beta-cell autoimmunity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: For this study, 20 individuals (mean age 39.5 +/- 11.1 years) with long-standing type 1 diabetes (21.3 +/- 10.7 years) were enrolled in this prospective open-label crossover trial. After achieving optimal blood glucose control, 16 subjects were randomized to exenatide with or without daclizumab. Endogenous insulin production was determined by repeatedly measuring serum C-peptide.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19808924 PMCID: PMC2782986 DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0773
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Care ISSN: 0149-5992 Impact factor: 19.112
Clinical and immunological characteristics of the 20 enrolled patients at screening
| No. | Sex | BMI (kg/m2) | Duration of disease (years) | A1C (%) | Basal (stim) C-peptide (ng/ml) | Antibodies | HLA haplotypes | T-cell reactivity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICA512 | GAD65 | DRB1 | DQB1 | Toronto (no. of + antigens) | Seattle (no. of + sections) | ||||||
| 1 | F | 24.3 | 10.2 | 7.6 | 0.70 (1.00) | neg | pos | 4 | 0 | ||
| 2 | F | 27.1 | 22.0 | 6.2 | 0.75 (0.80) | pos | pos |
|
| 9 | NR |
| 3 | F | 21.0 | 6.3 | 8.4 | 0.75 (1.00) | pos | pos |
|
| 9 | 18 |
| 4 | M | 29.1 | 21.0 | 8.0 | 0.93 (1.10) | neg | pos |
|
| 4 | NR |
| 5 | F | 30.9 | 16.8 | 6.5 | 0.57 (0.80) | pos | neg |
| 5 | 12 | |
| 6 | M | 23.8 | 38.4 | 7.1 | 0.20 (0.50) | neg | neg |
|
| 0 | NR |
| 7 | F | 21.7 | 22.5 | 7.4 | 0.39 (0.60) | neg | neg |
|
| 3 | 5 |
| 8 | M | 22.6 | 25.6 | 7.5 | 0.58 (0.89) | neg | neg |
|
| 10 | 4 |
| 9 | F | 31.2 | 16.8 | 7.1 | 0.44 (0.62) | neg | pos |
|
| 10 | 5 |
| 10 | M | 24.7 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 0.63 (0.94) | neg | pos | 0102, | 0501, | 6 | NR |
| 11 | M | 24.6 | 24.0 | 7.9 | 0.15 (0.62) | neg | neg | 12 | 9 | ||
| 12 | M | 29.8 | 36.1 | 5.6 | 0.22 (0.36) | neg | pos |
|
| 10 | NR |
| 13 | M | 27.1 | 37.1 | 7.0 | 0.76 (1.10) | neg | pos |
|
| 11 | 0 |
| 14 | F | 30.0 | 4.1 | 7.0 | 0.60 (0.91) | pos | pos | 0401, 1302 | 0301, 0604 | 11 | NR |
| 15 | M | 27.4 | 12.4 | 6.8 | 1.20 (1.80) | neg | pos | 1 | 14 | ||
| 16 | F | 27.5 | 30.4 | 8.9 | 0.27 (0.42) | neg | pos | 0202, | 9 | 0 | |
| 17 | F | 20.1 | 33.4 | 8.1 | 0.54 (0.68) | neg | pos |
|
| NR | NR |
| 18 | M | 26.1 | 29.8 | 10.2 | 0.62 (0.72) | neg | neg | NR | NR | ||
| 19 | F | 27.9 | 11.7 | 5.7 | 0.36 (0.56) | pos | pos | 0408, 1104 | 0304, 0603 | NR | NR |
| 20 | F | 22.0 | 21.4 | 6.8 | 0.48 (0.68) | pos | pos | 0101, | NR | NR | |
| 9M/11F | 25.9 ± 3.4 | 21.3 ± 10.7 | 7.3 ± 1.1 | 0.57 (0.81) | 6 of 20 | 14 of 20 | See legend | See legend | 14 of 16 | 7 of 10 | |
Patients 1–16 were randomized to one of four study arms and patients 1–14 completed the trial. Of the patients, 16 of 20 had high-susceptibility HLA haplotypes; 1 had a mixed and 1 a protective haplotype (indicated in bold print).
*Homozygosity is highly likely but could only be proven by family studies, which were not available;
†HLA type could not be differentiated with certainty (0301 vs. 0328); underlined numbers indicate that the haplotype belongs to one of five most susceptible subtypes (25). neg, negative; NR, no results available; pos, positive.
Figure 1Study design (A) and timeline for testing procedures (B): 20 patients entered the optimization period, 16 were randomized, and 14 completed the entire trial. B: A, arginine stimulation test; M, mixed-meal test; T, T-cell proliferation test.
Figure 2Results of C-peptide responses to arginine stimulation (A and B) and changes of insulin doses and weight according to treatment assignment (C). C-peptide results are shown at screening (basal versus stimulated C-peptide, P < 0.0001) and during run-in period (tests were conducted in months 2, 3, and 4 of run-in period [basal versus stimulated C-peptide, P = 0.0078]) (A) after 6 months of exenatide therapy versus not having received exenatide (irrespective of assignment to daclizumab) (B) with reference to mean results of run-in period. Data are means ± SEM. To convert C-peptide from conventional (ng/ml) to Si units (nmol/l), multiply by factor 0.333.
Figure 3Results of mixed-meal testing, conducted according to study timeline (Fig. 1B). Exenatide administered before a mixed meal delayed gastric emptying (A; P = 0.041) and glucose absorption (B; P = 0.052), did not change glucagon levels (C; P = 0.414), and suppressed GLP-1 (D; P = 0.024). P values reflect differences of areas under the curve comparing patients' results on and off exenatide; data are means ± SEM. To convert glucose from conventional (mg/dl) to Si units (nmol/l), multiply by factor 0.0555.