Exenatide extended release in patients with type 1 diabetes with and without residual insulin production

AimsTo test whether a long- acting GLP- 1 receptor agonist would improve glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and to determine whether the presence of residual beta cell function would affect the response. In addition, we sought to determine whether the drug would affect beta cell function.MethodsWe performed a randomized placebo- controlled trial of exenatide extended release (ER) in participants with T1D with and without detectable levels of C- peptide. Seventy- nine participants were randomized to exenatide ER 2 mcg weekly, or placebo, stratified by the presence or absence of detectable C- peptide levels. The primary outcome was the difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels at 24- weeks. Participants were followed for another 6 months off study drug.ResultsAt week 24, the time of the primary outcome, the least squares (LS) mean HbA1c level was 7.76% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.42, 8.10) in the exenatide ER group versus 8.0% (95% CI 7.64, 8.35) in the placebo group (P = 0.08). At week 12 the LS mean HbA1c levels were 7.71% (95% CI 7.37, 8.05) in the exenatide ER group versus 8.05% (95% CI 7.7, 8.4) in the placebo group (P = 0.01). The improvement at week 12 was driven mainly by those with detectable levels of C- peptide. Those treated with exenatide ER lost weight at 12 and 24- weeks compared to those treated with placebo (P- <0.001 and P = 0.007). The total insulin dose was lower, but not when corrected for body weight, and was not affected by residual insulin production. Adverse events were more frequent with exenatide ER, but hypoglycaemia was not increased.ConclusionTreatment with exenatide ER may have short- term benefits in some individuals with T1D who are overweight or who have detectable levels of C- peptide, but short- term improvements were not sustained.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163873/1/dom14121_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163873/2/dom14121.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163873/3/dom14121-sup-0001-Supinfo.pd

The Demise of Islet Allotransplantation in the US: A Call for an Urgent Regulatory Update The ISLETS FOR US Collaborative

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and more than minimally manipulated human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). Across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as minimally manipulated tissue which has led to islet transplantation becoming a standard-of-care procedure for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and problematic hypoglycemia. As a result of the outdated US regulations, only eleven patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2011-2016 and all in the setting of a clinical trial. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both, better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States

The demise of islet allotransplantation in the United States: A call for an urgent regulatory update

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and “more than minimally manipulated” human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as “minimally manipulated tissue” and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo-ITx) becoming a standard-of-care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States

Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease to receive canagliflozin, an oral SGLT2 inhibitor, at a dose of 100 mg daily or placebo. All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30 to &lt;90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and albuminuria (ratio of albumin [mg] to creatinine [g], &gt;300 to 5000) and were treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The primary outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (dialysis, transplantation, or a sustained estimated GFR of &lt;15 ml per minute per 1.73 m2), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P=0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P&lt;0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P=0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P&lt;0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years

Virology under the microscope—a call for rational discourse

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns – conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we – a broad group of working virologists – seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology

Adult-onset autoimmune diabetes

Adult-onset autoimmune (AOA) diabetes pathophysiology starts with immune changes, followed by dysglycaemia and overt disease. AOA diabetes can occur as classic type 1 diabetes when associated with severe loss of insulin secretion. More frequently, it is diagnosed as latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, a slowly progressing form with late onset, a long period not requiring insulin, and it is often misdiagnosed as type 2 diabetes. As its clinical presentation varies remarkably and immune markers often lack specificity, it is challenging to classify each case ad hoc, especially when insulin treatment is not required at diagnosis. Proper care of AOA diabetes aims to prevent complications and to improve quality of life and life expectancy. To achieve these goals, attention should be paid to lifestyle factors, with the aid of pharmacological therapies properly tailored to each individual clinical setting. Given the heterogeneity of the disease, choosing the right therapy for AOA diabetes is challenging. Most of the trials testing disease-modifying therapies for autoimmune diabetes are conducted in people with childhood onset, whereas non-insulin diabetes therapies have mostly been studied in the larger population with type 2 diabetes. More randomized controlled trials of therapeutic agents in AOA diabetes are needed