Cited by 520Diabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and ResearchPancreatic function and diabetes

GAD treatment and insulin secretion in recent-onset type 1 diabetes

Open access
Ludvigsson, Johnny, Faresjö, Maria, Hjorth, Maria, Axelsson, Stina, Chéramy, Mikael, Pihl, Mikael, Vaarala, Outi, Forsander, Gun +8 more·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 65-kD isoform of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) is a major autoantigen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This trial assessed the ability of alum-formulated GAD (GAD-alum) to reverse recent-onset type 1 diabetes in patients 10 to 18 years of age. METHODS: We randomly assigned 70 patients with type 1 diabetes who had fasting C-peptide levels above 0.1 nmol per liter (0.3 ng per milliliter) and GAD autoantibodies, recruited within 18 months after receiving the diagnosis of diabetes, to receive subcutaneous injections of 20 microg of GAD-alum (35 patients) or placebo (alum alone, 35 patients) on study days 1 and 30. At day 1 and months 3, 9, 15, 21, and 30, patients underwent a mixed-meal tolerance test to stimulate residual insulin secretion (measured as the C-peptide level). The effect of GAD-alum on the immune system was also studied. RESULTS: Insulin secretion gradually decreased in both study groups. The study treatment had no significant effect on change in fasting C-peptide level after 15 months (the primary end point). Fasting C-peptide levels declined from baseline levels significantly less over 30 months in the GAD-alum group than in the placebo group (-0.21 vs. -0.27 nmol per liter [-0.62 vs. -0.81 ng per milliliter], P=0.045), as did stimulated secretion measured as the area under the curve (-0.72 vs. -1.02 nmol per liter per 2 hours [-2.20 vs. -3.08 ng per milliliter per 2 hours], P=0.04). No protective effect was seen in patients treated 6 months or more after receiving the diagnosis. Adverse events appeared to be mild and similar in frequency between the two groups. The GAD-alum treatment induced a GAD-specific immune response. CONCLUSIONS: GAD-alum may contribute to the preservation of residual insulin secretion in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes, although it did not change the insulin requirement. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00435981.)

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa0804328

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • 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 [24]

    The Methods describe one trial of subcutaneous GAD-alum injections; this paper does not test intralymphatic administration. The Results report no significant effect on the 15-month primary endpoint, but significantly less decline in insulin secretion at 30 months, so an unqualified statement that preservation was not shown overstates this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. www.nejm.org october 30, 2008 GAD Treatment and Insulin Secretion in Type 1 Diabetes
  2. Lernmark A, Agardh CD. Immuno- 20. modulation with human recombinant au- toantigens. Trends Immunol 2005;26: 608-12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ludvigsson, J., Faresjö, M., Hjorth, M., Axelsson, S., Chéramy, M., Pihl, M., Vaarala, O., Forsander, G., Ivarsson, S., Johansson, C., Lindh, A., Nilsson, N.-Ö., Åman, J., Örtqvist, E., Zerhouni, P., & Casas, R.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-10-30
Volume
359
Issue
18
Pages
1909-1920
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2041637201
Cited by
520
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 51
FWCI
38.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, glutamic acid decarboxylase, glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies, residual insulin secretion, C-peptide, recent-onset diabetes, autoimmunity, mixed meal tolerance test
MeSH terms
Insulin Secretion, Adolescent, Analysis of Variance, Autoantibodies, C-Peptide, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glutamate Decarboxylase, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Immunotherapy, Injections, Subcutaneous, Insulin, Male

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