Testing agents for prevention or reversal of type 1 diabetes in rodents

Christian W Grant1, Catherine M Moran-Paul, Shane K Duclos

  • 1Biomedical Research Models (BRM), Inc., Worcester and Springfield, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Plos One
|September 12, 2013
PubMed

Insights

Novel agents failed to prevent or reverse type 1 diabetes (T1D) in rodent models. Despite rigorous testing, none showed efficacy, though positive controls were effective, confirming the feasibility of independent preclinical screening.

Area of Science:

  • Immunology
  • Endocrinology
  • Pharmacology

Background:

  • Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an autoimmune disease requiring novel therapeutic strategies.
  • Preclinical models are crucial for evaluating potential T1D treatments.
  • Independent validation of novel agents is essential for drug development.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To independently test novel agents for preventing or reversing type 1 diabetes (T1D) in established rodent models.
  • To assess the efficacy of agents suggested by the research community.
  • To validate a rigorous testing methodology mimicking human clinical trials.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice and BioBreeding diabetes prone (BBDP) and multiple autoimmune disease prone (MAD) rats.
  • Employed prescreening, randomization, blinding, and improved glycemic care.
  • Tested agents including a STAT4 antagonist, alpha1 anti-trypsin, celastrol, a Macrophage Inflammatory Factor inhibitor, tolerogenic peptides, and a GLP-1 formulation.

Main Results:

  • None of the tested novel agents demonstrated efficacy in preventing or reversing T1D in the utilized models.
  • Positive control interventions (anti-CD3, dexamethasone, cyclosporin) effectively prevented or reversed T1D.
  • The study confirmed the feasibility of independent laboratory screening of diverse test agents.

Conclusions:

  • The tested novel agents were not effective in preventing or reversing T1D in preclinical models.
  • Potential limitations in prior studies' formulation, delivery, dosing, or experimental design may explain discrepancies.
  • The developed testing protocols are robust and capable of detecting effects at clinically relevant magnitudes.