- advertisement -

GAD65(Diamyd) still alive.

Discussion in 'Research' started by Ernst, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. Ernst

    Ernst Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    42
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012
  2. DadCares

    DadCares Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    321
    Could someone please use an English transalator and paste the results in this thread? Thank you.
     
  3. DadCares

    DadCares Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    321
    Could someone please use an English transalator and paste the results in this thread? Thank you.
     
  4. My_Dana

    My_Dana Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    596
    http://www.liu.se/forskning/forskningsnyheter/1.320254?l=sv

    I use Google Chrome and it will automatically ask to translate.
    Works great.

    Here is the article -

    The development of a drug for type 1 diabetes, based on auto-antigen GAD65, received a setback after the crucial clinical trial did not show clear enough power. One possible reason may be seasonal variations in the immune system, write those responsible for the study of the New England Journal of Medicine.

    -We have not given up, but still believe that the GAD-alum may prove to be an important part in terms of both preventing and treating type 1 diabetes, says Johnny Ludvigsson (pictured), professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Link?ping .

    In the development of type 1 diabetes, the immune system attacks the insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. In connection with the development are often antibodies directed against different proteins in beta cells. Such is the GAD65, an enzyme normally present in the brain, but whose function in beta cells is unknown.

    Led by Johnny Ludvigsson conducted clinical trials of treatment with alumformulerat GAD65 in new onset patients. Three years ago, researchers showed in a Phase 2 study that such vaccination could retard the degradation of beta cells. At a four-year follow-up was found that C-peptide - a measure of endogenous insulin production - was significantly higher in patients who had fallen ill less than six months before the start of the study, compared with a control group.

    For Phase 3 study enrolled 334 patients between the ages of ten to twenty years. Within three months after diagnosis were randomly assigned to the three different treatments: four doses of GAD-alum, two doses of GAD-alum followed by two doses of placebo or four doses of placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in C-peptide levels 15 months after starting treatment. The results showed a positive trend but no significant effect.

    The authors of the article in this week's edition of the NEJM makes now the question: "Why did this Phase 3 study no effect, in contrast to our earlier Phase 2 study?"

    As a statement released seasonal variations in the immune system. When the material is broken down into subgroups, it appears that the treatment had significant effect among patients who received their first GAD alumdos in March or April, which was the period when all patients in the Phase 2 study were vaccinated.

    Another discrepancy that may have played a role in the results was that the Phase 3 study coincided with the outbreak of swine flu, which led to widespread vaccination. The diabetic patients who were vaccinated against influenza within 150 days responded better on the GAD-alum treatment than the others in the study. Additional factors affecting the results can be age and gender. The large European study, the effect was significant for boys.

    Treatment for type 1 diabetes will probably be based on knowledge gained from this and other studies of single agents or combination therapies, the authors write. Several tests under way - and how it went at a slightly longer follow-up than 15 months, and how the immune response.
     
  5. My_Dana

    My_Dana Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    596
    Prevention

    Just received this.
    Not to derail the thread, but talking about D prevention I think it's appropriate.

    In terms of prevention here's more supporting evidence for vitamin D3.
    Although this article doesn't mention T1 or T2, I spoke to our Endo and he acknowledged there is mounting evidence that low D3 levels are associated with auto-immune T1 (and auto-immunity diseases in general).

    So I had Dana's checked. She came in at 50ng/ml.
    30 is the baseline. The Dr. said 10 is more common for our area (and probably others as well). We give Dana about 20,000IU per week via drops.
    So if you are concerned prevention in siblings, D3 may as good as this vaccine and far more useful in the body.

    (my emphasis)
    Vitamin D Again Shows Anti-Diabetic Activity
    February 2012
    Increased blood levels of vitamin D may reduce the risk of developing diabetes, suggests data from Spain that adds to a growing body of science supporting the anti-diabetic potential of the sunshine vitamin.

    The incidence of diabetes was almost eight percent lower in people with blood levels of vitamin D greater than 18.5 ng/mL, compared with levels lower than 18.5 ng/mL, according to results of a study with 961 people published in Clinical Nutrition.

    While the results show correlation and not causation, researchers from the University Hospital Carlos Haya in Malaga note that it is biologically plausible that vitamin D may reduce the incidence of diabetes, including influencing the function of beta cells, cells in the pancreas that control insulin production.

    The vitamin may also affect sensitivity to insulin, said the researchers, while an anti-inflammatory role may also affect diabetes risk.

    This is not the first time that a potential anti-diabetic role for vitamin D has been reported. Last summer, researchers from Tufts and Harvard Universities reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that a daily 2,000 international units (IU) dose of vitamin D3, also known as cholecalciferol, may boost the functioning of beta cells by 25%.

    The new study, led by Inmaculada Gonzalez-Molero, included 1,226 people, 961 of whom finished the study. Blood levels of vitamin D were taken?measured as 25-hydroxyvitamin D?and oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at the start (1996-1998), during (2002-2004) and at the end of the study (2005-2007).

    Results showed that the incidence of diabetes was less than five percent in people with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels greater than 18.5 ng/mL, compared with an incidence of 12.4% in people with blood levels of the sunshine vitamin less than this.

    In addition, the risk of developing diabetes was significantly lower in people with the higher vitamin D levels, with no diabetes recorded in people with blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D higher than 30 ng/mL.
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice