The influence of body mass index and age on C-peptide at the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children who participated in the diabetes prevention trial-type 1

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The extent of influence of BMI and age on C-peptide at the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is unknown. We thus studied the impact of body mass index Z-scores (BMIZ) and age on C-peptide measures at and soon after the diagnosis of T1D. METHODS: Data from Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) participants <18.0 years at diagnosis was analyzed. Analyses examined associations of C-peptide measures with BMIZ and age in 2 cohorts: oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) at diagnosis (n = 99) and mixed meal tolerance tests (MMTTs) <6 months after diagnosis (n = 80). Multivariable linear regression was utilized. RESULTS: Fasting and area under the curve (AUC) C-peptide from OGTTs (n = 99) at diagnosis and MMTTs (n = 80) after diagnosis were positively associated with BMIZ and age (P < .001 for all). Associations persisted when BMIZ and age were included as independent variables in regression models (P < .001 for all). BMIZ and age explained 31%-47% of the variance of C-peptide measures. In an example, 2 individuals with identical AUC C-peptide values had an approximate 5-fold difference in values after adjustments for BMIZ and age. The association between fasting glucose and C-peptide decreased markedly when fasting C-peptide values were adjusted (r = 0.30, P < .01 to r = 0.07, n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: C-peptide measures are strongly and independently related to BMIZ and age at and soon after the diagnosis of T1D. Adjustments for BMIZ and age cause substantial changes in C-peptide values, and impact the association between glycemia and C-peptide. Such adjustments can improve assessments of β-cell impairment at diagnosis

Use of Dried Capillary Blood Sampling for Islet Autoantibody Screening in Relatives:A Feasibility Study

Background: Islet autoantibody testing provides the basis for assessment of risk of progression to type 1 diabetes. We set out to determine the feasibility and acceptability of dried capillary blood spot–based screening to identify islet autoantibody–positive relatives potentially eligible for inclusion in prevention trials. Materials and Methods: Dried blood spot (DBS) and venous samples were collected from 229 relatives participating in the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study. Both samples were tested for glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet antigen 2, and zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies, and venous samples were additionally tested for insulin autoantibodies and islet cell antibodies. We defined multiple autoantibody positive as two or more autoantibodies in venous serum and DBS screen positive if one or more autoantibodies were detected. Participant questionnaires compared the sample collection methods. Results: Of 44 relatives who were multiple autoantibody positive in venous samples, 42 (95.5%) were DBS screen positive, and DBS accurately detected 145 of 147 autoantibody-negative relatives (98.6%). Capillary blood sampling was perceived as more painful than venous blood draw, but 60% of participants would prefer initial screening using home fingerstick with clinic visits only required if autoantibodies were found. Conclusions: Capillary blood sampling could facilitate screening for type 1 diabetes prevention studies.</p

Use of self-collected capillary blood samples for islet autoantibody screening in relatives:a feasibility and acceptability study

To evaluate the feasibility of using self-collected capillary blood samples for islet autoantibody testing to identify risk in relatives of people with Type 1 diabetes. Participants were recruited via the observational TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study, which screens and monitors relatives of people with Type 1 diabetes for islet autoantibodies. Relatives were sent kits for capillary blood collection, with written instructions, an online instructional video link and a questionnaire. Sera from capillary blood samples were tested for autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet antigen-2, insulin and zinc transporter 8. 'Successful' sample collection was defined as obtaining sufficient volume and quality to provide definitive autoantibody results, including confirmation of positive results by repeat assay. In 240 relatives who returned samples, the median (range) age was 15.5 (1-49) years and 51% were male. Of these samples, 98% were sufficient for glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet antigen-2 and zinc transporter 8 autoantibody testing and 84% for insulin autoantibody testing and complete autoantibody screen. The upper 90% confidence bound for unsuccessful collection was 4.4% for glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet antigen-2 and/or zinc transporter 8 autoantibody assays, and 19.3% for insulin autoantibodies. Despite 43% of 220 questionnaire respondents finding capillary blood collection uncomfortable or painful, 82% preferred home self-collection of capillary blood samples compared with outpatient venepuncture (90% of those aged 18 years). The perceived difficulty of collecting capillary blood samples did not affect success rate. Self-collected capillary blood sampling offers a feasible alternative to venous sampling, with the potential to facilitate autoantibody screening for Type 1 diabetes risk

Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A double-blind, phase 1/2a, randomized controlled trial

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in COVID-19 is associated with high mortality. Mesenchymal stem cells are known to exert immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects and could yield beneficial effects in COVID-19 ARDS. The objective of this study was to determine safety and explore efficacy of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell (UC-MSC) infusions in subjects with COVID-19 ARDS. A double-blind, phase 1/2a, randomized, controlled trial was performed. Randomization and stratification by ARDS severity was used to foster balance among groups. All subjects were analyzed under intention to treat design. Twenty-four subjects were randomized 1:1 to either UC-MSC treatment (n = 12) or the control group (n = 12). Subjects in the UC-MSC treatment group received two intravenous infusions (at day 0 and 3) of 100 ± 20 × 106 UC-MSCs; controls received two infusions of vehicle solution. Both groups received best standard of care. Primary endpoint was safety (adverse events [AEs]) within 6 hours; cardiac arrest or death within 24 hours postinfusion). Secondary endpoints included patient survival at 31 days after the first infusion and time to recovery. No difference was observed between groups in infusion-associated AEs. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed related to UC-MSC infusions. UC-MSC infusions in COVID-19 ARDS were found to be safe. Inflammatory cytokines were significantly decreased in UC-MSC-treated subjects at day 6. Treatment was associated with significantly improved patient survival (91% vs 42%, P =.015), SAE-free survival (P =.008), and time to recovery (P =.03). UC-MSC infusions are safe and could be beneficial in treating subjects with COVID-19 ARDS

Participant and parent experiences in the oral insulin study of the Diabetes Prevention Trial for Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To assess the experiences of participants and parents of children in the oral insulin study of the Diabetes Prevention Trial –Type 1. METHOD: Before trial results were publicized, surveys were completed by 124 participants and 219 parents of children in the oral trial. RESULTS: Although most of those surveyed were positive about the trial, survey results suggest that participant perspective (adult, child, parent, and gender), study procedures, and beliefs about placebo vs. active drug assignment have important implications for planning future clinical trials. Parents and children reported greater distress, worry, and difficulty making the decision to join the trial compared with adult participants. Mothers and female participants were particularly interested in additional psychosocial support during the study. Random assignment was viewed negatively by both parents and children, and close observation for diabetes onset was viewed as the most favorable aspect of the study. Adherence to study procedures declined over time and behaviors outside the study protocol to prevent/delay diabetes onset were common, particularly among those who believed the participant was taking a placebo. Children and respondents who believed that the participant was taking the active drug expressed confidence in oral insulin’s ability to delay or prevent type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participants were positive about the trial and many expressed optimism about the intervention’s potential for success, future trials need to address negative reactions to random assignment, the unique concerns of children and their parents, declining adherence, and behaviors – external to the trial – designed to delay or prevent diabetes

Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet:a multifaceted approach to bringing disease-modifying therapy toclinical use in type 1 diabetes

What will it take to bring disease-modifying therapy to clinical use in type 1 diabetes? Coordinated efforts of investigators involved in discovery, translational, and clinical research operating in partnership with funders and industry and in sync with regulatory agencies are needed. This Perspective describes one such effort, Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet, a National Institutes of Health–funded and JDRF-supported international clinical trials network that emerged from the Diabetes Prevention Trial–Type 1 (DPT-1). Through longitudinal natural history studies, as well as trials before and after clinical onset of disease combined with mechanistic and ancillary investigations to enhance scientific understanding and translation to clinical use, TrialNet is working to bring disease-modifying therapies to individuals with type 1 diabetes. Moreover, TrialNet uses its expertise and experience in clinical studies to increase efficiencies in the conduct of trials and to reduce the burden of participation on individuals and families. Herein, we highlight key contributions made by TrialNet toward a revised understanding of the natural history of disease and approaches to alter disease course and outline the consortium’s plans for the future.</jats:p