Challenges to Reshape the Future of Type 1 Diabetes Research

Treating Type 1 Diabetes by Pancreas Transplant Alone: A Cohort Study on Actual Long-term (10 Years) Efficacy and Safety

BACKGROUND

Physiologically regulated insulin secretion and euglycemia are achievable in type 1 diabetes (T1D) by islet or pancreas transplantation. However, pancreas transplant alone (PTA) remains a debated approach, with uncertainties on its relative benefits and risks. We determined the actual long-term (10 y) efficacy and safety of PTA in carefully characterized T1D subjects.

METHODS

This is a single-center, cohort study in 66 consecutive T1D subjects who received a PTA between April 2001 and December 2007, and were then all followed until 10 y since transplant. Main features evaluated were patient survival, pancreas graft function, C-peptide levels, glycemic parameters, and the function of the native kidneys.

RESULTS

Ten-year actual patient survival was 92.4%. Optimal (insulin independence) or good (minimal insulin requirement) graft function was observed in 57.4% and 3.2% of patients, respectively. Six (9.0%) patients developed stage 5 or 4 chronic kidney disease. In the remaining individuals bearing a successful PTA, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline per year was -2.29 ± 2.69 mL/min/1.73 m2. Reduction of eGFR at 1 y post-PTA was higher in those with pre-PTA hyperfiltration and higher HbA1c concentrations; eGFR changes afterward significantly correlated with diabetes duration. In recipients with normoglycemia at 10 y, 74% of normoalbuminuric or microalbuminuric subjects pre-PTA remained stable, and 26% progressed toward a worse stage; conversely, in 62.5% of the macroalbuminuric individuals albuminuria severity regressed.

CONCLUSIONS

These long-term effects of PTA on patient survival, graft function, and the native kidneys support PTA as a suitable approach to treat diabetes in selected T1D patients.

Are we aiming to miss in translational autoimmunity treatments?

Autoimmunity treatments, fruitfully pioneered in mouse models, can be disappointing or result in immunosuppression and opportunistic infections in translational trials. Many possible reasons exist, but one major, overlooked reason may be the treatment timing in relation to circadian oscillations of the immune system. Mice and humans both have immunological circadian clocks and experience the same circulatory oscillations of immune cells with regards to their sleep/wake phases, but have opposite sleep/wake phases with regard to the daylight cycle. Therefore, researchers mainly study mice and potential autoimmunity treatments during the murine sleep/rest phase, which is when pro-inflammatory mediators and more adaptive immune cells are prevalent in the circulation. In translational trials, however, treatment administration happens primarily during a patient's wake/activity phase, during the daytime, which is when more local and acute immune responses are active in the circulation. Therefore, we believe that the most opportune window for autoimmunity treatment may be missed in translational trials. Shifting the timing, and adjusting dosing to target only immune cells that are active at that time, may result in higher success with minimized immunosuppression or toxicities.