- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Lord, Sandra"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Barriers to Screening: An Analysis of Factors Impacting Screening for Type 1 Diabetes Prevention Trials(Oxford University Press, 2023-01-11) Kinney, Mara; You, Lu; Sims, Emily K.; Wherrett, Diane; Schatz, Desmond; Lord, Sandra; Krischer, Jeffrey; Russell, William E.; Gottlieb, Peter A.; Libman, Ingrid; Buckner, Jane; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Herold, Kevan C.; Steck, Andrea K.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineContext: Participants with stage 1 or 2 type 1 diabetes (T1D) qualify for prevention trials, but factors involved in screening for such trials are largely unknown. Objective: To identify factors associated with screening for T1D prevention trials. Methods: This study included TrialNet Pathway to Prevention participants who were eligible for a prevention trial: oral insulin (TN-07, TN-20), teplizumab (TN-10), abatacept (TN-18), and oral hydroxychloroquine (TN-22). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine participant, site, and study factors at the time of prevention trial accrual. Results: Screening rates for trials were: 50% for TN-07 (584 screened/1172 eligible), 9% for TN-10 (106/1249), 24% for TN-18 (313/1285), 17% for TN-20 (113/667), and 28% for TN-22 (371/1336). Younger age and male sex were associated with higher screening rates for prevention trials overall and for oral therapies. Participants with an offspring with T1D showed lower rates of screening for all trials and oral drug trials compared with participants with other first-degree relatives as probands. Site factors, including larger monitoring volume and US site vs international site, were associated with higher prevention trial screening rates. Conclusions: Clear differences exist between participants who screen for prevention trials and those who do not screen and between the research sites involved in prevention trial screening. Participant age, sex, and relationship to proband are significantly associated with prevention trial screening in addition to key site factors. Identifying these factors can facilitate strategic recruitment planning to support rapid and successful enrollment into prevention trials.Item IL-6 receptor blockade does not slow β cell loss in new-onset type 1 diabetes(American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2021) Greenbaum, Carla J.; Serti, Elisavet; Lambert, Katharina; Weiner, Lia J.; Kanaparthi, Sai; Lord, Sandra; Gitelman, Stephen E.; Wilson, Darrell M.; Gaglia, Jason L.; Griffin, Kurt J.; Russell, William E.; Raskin, Philip; Moran, Antoinette; Willi, Steven M.; Tsalikian, Eva; DiMeglio, Linda A.; Herold, Kevan C.; Moore, Wayne V.; Goland, Robin; Harris, Mark; Craig, Maria E.; Schatz, Desmond A.; Baidal, David A.; Rodriguez, Henry; Utzschneider, Kristina M.; Nel, Hendrik J.; Soppe, Carol L.; Boyle, Karen D.; Cerosaletti, Karen; Keyes-Elstein, Lynette; Long, S. Alice; Thomas, Ranjeny; McNamara, James G.; Buckner, Jane H.; Sanda, Srinath; ITN058AI EXTEND Study Team; Pediatrics, School of MedicineBackground: IL-6 receptor (IL-6R) signaling drives development of T cell populations important to type 1 diabetes pathogenesis. We evaluated whether blockade of IL-6R with monoclonal antibody tocilizumab would slow loss of residual β cell function in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes patients. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial with tocilizumab in new-onset type 1 diabetes. Participants were screened within 100 days of diagnosis. Eligible participants were randomized 2:1 to receive 7 monthly doses of tocilizumab or placebo. The primary outcome was the change from screening in the mean AUC of C-peptide collected during the first 2 hours of a mixed meal tolerance test at week 52 in pediatric participants (ages 6–17 years). Results: There was no statistical difference in the primary outcome between tocilizumab and placebo. Immunophenotyping showed reductions in downstream signaling of the IL-6R in T cells but no changes in CD4 memory subsets, Th17 cells, Tregs, or CD4+ T effector cell resistance to Treg suppression. A DC subset decreased during therapy but regressed to baseline once therapy stopped. Tocilizumab was well tolerated. Conclusion: Tocilizumab reduced T cell IL-6R signaling but did not modulate CD4+ T cell phenotypes or slow loss of residual β cell function in newly diagnosed individuals with type 1 diabetes.