Cited by 371Diabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and ResearchT-cell and B-cell Immunology

Antigen-based therapy with glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) vaccine in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised double-blind trial

Open access
Wherrett, Diane K, Bundy, Brian, Becker, Dorothy J, DiMeglio, Linda A, Gitelman, Stephen E, Goland, Robin, Gottlieb, Peter A, Greenbaum, Carla J +12 more·2011·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) is a major target of the autoimmune response that occurs in type 1 diabetes mellitus. In animal models of autoimmunity, treatment with a target antigen can modulate aggressive autoimmunity. We aimed to assess whether immunisation with GAD formulated with aluminum hydroxide (GAD-alum) would preserve insulin production in recent-onset type 1 diabetes.Methods Patients aged 3-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes for less than 100 days were enrolled from 15 sites in the USA and Canada, and randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: three injections of 20 μg GAD-alum, two injections of 20 μg GAD-alum and one of alum, or 3 injections of alum. Injections were given subcutaneously at baseline, 4 weeks later, and 8 weeks after the second injection. The randomisation sequence was computer generated at the TrialNet coordinating centre. Patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the baseline-adjusted geometric mean area under the curve (AUC) of serum C-peptide during the first 2 h of a 4-h mixed meal tolerance test at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included changes in glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) and insulin dose, and safety. Analysis included all randomised patients with known measurements. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00529399.Findings 145 patients were enrolled and treated with GAD-alum (n=48), GAD-alum plus alum (n=49), or alum (n=48). At 1 year, the 2-h AUC of C-peptide, adjusted for age, sex, and baseline C-peptide value, was 0·412 nmol/L (95% CI 0·349-0·478) in the GAD-alum group, 0·382 nmol/L (0·322-0·446) in the GAD-alum plus alum group, and 0·413 nmol/L (0·351-0·477) in the alum group. The ratio of the population mean of the adjusted geometric mean 2-h AUC of C-peptide was 0·998 (95% CI 0·779-1·22; p=0·98) for GAD-alum versus alum, and 0·926 (0·720-1·13; p=0·50) for GAD-alum plus alum versus alum. HbA(1c), insulin use, and the occurrence and severity of adverse events did not differ between groups.Interpretation Antigen-based immunotherapy therapy with two or three doses of subcutaneous GAD-alum across 4-12 weeks does not alter the course of loss of insulin secretion during 1 year in patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Although antigen-based therapy is a highly desirable treatment and is effective in animal models, translation to human autoimmune disease remains a challenge.Funding US National Institutes of Health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60895-7

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trials of antigen therapy with different GAD protein forms have had mixed results, mostly negative.

    “Antigen-based trials have used various forms of glutamate decarboxylase (GAD) protein, which have shown mixed but mostly negative results.139–141”

    From Type 1 diabetes (2018) · cites this paper as [141]

    The Research in context panel reports that this GAD-alum trial found no effect, while an earlier GAD vaccine trial suggested benefit in a small subgroup. That supports mixed results, but the paper does not establish that trials used different GAD protein forms or that GAD trials were mostly negative overall. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • After promising phase 1-2 trials in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes and detectable endogenous insulin production, phase 3 trials of anti-CD3 antibodies (otelixizumab and teplizumab), and the Diamyd vaccine (GAD-alum immunotherapy) did not meet primary endpoints.

    “Disappointingly, after promising phase 1–2 trials in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes and detectable endogenous insulin production, phase 3 trials of anti-CD3 antibodies (otelixizumab and teplizumab), and the Diamyd vaccine (GAD-alum immunotherapy) did not meet primary endpoints.135–141”

    From Type 1 diabetes (2014) · cites this paper as [141]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • GAD65-based therapies delivered via subcutaneous or intralymphatic administration have been tested in multiple clinical trials; overall efficacy in preserving insulin secretion was not shown.

    “GAD₆₅based therapies delivered via subcutaneous or intralymphatic administration have been tested in multiple clinical trials.[24][25][26] Overall efficacy in preserving insulin secretion was not shown.”

    From The future of type 1 diabetes therapy (2025) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Methods (Procedures) describe subcutaneous GAD-alum injections, and the Results (Efficacy) found no significant difference in C-peptide preservation versus placebo. The Discussion mentions an earlier GAD-alum study, but this paper does not test intralymphatic administration or establish an overall efficacy conclusion across both routes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 371

Authors
Wherrett, D. K., Bundy, B., Becker, D. J., DiMeglio, L. A., Gitelman, S. E., Goland, R., Gottlieb, P. A., Greenbaum, C. J., Herold, K. C., Marks, J. B., Monzavi, R., Moran, A., Orban, T., Palmer, J. P., Raskin, P., Rodriguez, H., Schatz, D., Wilson, D. M., Krischer, J. P., & Skyler, J. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
  • Virginia Mason Medical Center (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Joslin Diabetes Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Skyler, Jay S
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-07
Volume
378
Issue
9788
Pages
319-327
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2096862996
Cited by
371
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 42
FWCI
24.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HHSN267200800019C, U01 DK061010, U01 DK061016, U01 DK061034, U01 DK061036, U01 DK061040, U01 DK061041, U01 DK061042, U01 DK061055, U01 DK061058, U01 DK084565, U01 DK085453, U01 DK085461, U01 DK085463, U01 DK085466, U01 DK085499, U01 DK085505, U01 DK085509)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01 RR00400, UL1 RR024131, UL1 RR024139, UL1 RR024153, UL1 RR024975, UL1 RR024982, UL1 RR025744, UL1 RR025761, UL1 RR025780, UL1 RR029890, UL1 RR031986)
  • Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International
  • American Diabetes Association
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, glutamic acid decarboxylase, recent-onset type 1 diabetes, C-peptide, insulin secretion, autoimmunity, aluminum hydroxide adjuvant, mixed meal tolerance test, HbA1c, insulin dose, TrialNet, immunotherapy, beta-cell preservation, children and adolescents
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Antigens, Autoimmune Diseases, Canada, Child, Child, Preschool, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Double-Blind Method, Female, Glutamate Decarboxylase, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Immunotherapy, Active, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review