A systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions to preserve insulin-secreting beta cell function in people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: results from randomised controlled trials of immunomodulatory therapies.

IF 8.3 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sophie E Beese, Malcolm J Price, Claire Tomlinson, Pawana Sharma, Isobel M Harris, Ada Adriano, Lauren M Quinn, Ritu Gada, Thomas J Horgan, Fiona Maggs, Martin Burrows, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, G Neil Thomas, Robert C Andrews, David J Moore, Parth Narendran
{"title":"A systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions to preserve insulin-secreting beta cell function in people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: results from randomised controlled trials of immunomodulatory therapies.","authors":"Sophie E Beese, Malcolm J Price, Claire Tomlinson, Pawana Sharma, Isobel M Harris, Ada Adriano, Lauren M Quinn, Ritu Gada, Thomas J Horgan, Fiona Maggs, Martin Burrows, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, G Neil Thomas, Robert C Andrews, David J Moore, Parth Narendran","doi":"10.1186/s12916-025-04201-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Type 1 diabetes is characterised by the immune-mediated destruction of pancreatic beta cells. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of immunotherapies for preserving residual beta cell function in newly diagnosed (stage 3) type 1 diabetes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and trial registries until 31st Jul 2024. RCTs of immunotherapies to preserve beta cells in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were included. Data were extracted using a bespoke, piloted extraction sheet. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. A random effects network meta-analysis was undertaken in R. The primary outcome was C-peptide. Interventions were analysed by class.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty trials were included (4597 patients, 32 intervention classes). Forty-one trials of 42 interventions were eligible for network meta-analysis. Eleven interventions demonstrated statistically significantly higher levels of C-peptide than placebo at 12 months, mesenchymal stem cells (autologous and Wharton's jelly-derived cells), azathioprine, interferon-alpha (5000 IU), autologous dendritic cells, anti-TNF golimumab, low-dose ATG, 3 mg 1-course anti-CD3 teplizumab, baricitinib, cyclosporin and 9/11 mg 2-course anti-CD3 teplizumab but with substantial heterogeneity present (I<sup>2</sup> = 66%). Azathioprine ranked highest (median ranking 3rd); however, rankings demonstrated relatively wide confidence intervals and thus uncertainty in exact rank order of near adjacent therapies. Risk of bias assessment identified poor reporting, particularly in older trials, but few studies demonstrated high risk overall.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Eleven of 42 interventions demonstrated statistically significantly higher C-peptide levels than placebo at 12 months in the network meta-analysis. These results have identified the 11 most promising therapies trialled and help to direct future head-to-head clinical trials to support approvals for interventions to treat those newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. However, data for some interventions originated from small studies (mesenchymal stem cell therapies, azathioprine, autologous dendritic cells) and findings should be considered as hypothesis generating and interpreted with caution due to evidence heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>The protocol for the systematic review was registered on PROSPERO, the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (registration: CRD42018107904).</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"351"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12211534/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-04201-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Type 1 diabetes is characterised by the immune-mediated destruction of pancreatic beta cells. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of immunotherapies for preserving residual beta cell function in newly diagnosed (stage 3) type 1 diabetes.

Methods: Searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and trial registries until 31st Jul 2024. RCTs of immunotherapies to preserve beta cells in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were included. Data were extracted using a bespoke, piloted extraction sheet. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. A random effects network meta-analysis was undertaken in R. The primary outcome was C-peptide. Interventions were analysed by class.

Results: Sixty trials were included (4597 patients, 32 intervention classes). Forty-one trials of 42 interventions were eligible for network meta-analysis. Eleven interventions demonstrated statistically significantly higher levels of C-peptide than placebo at 12 months, mesenchymal stem cells (autologous and Wharton's jelly-derived cells), azathioprine, interferon-alpha (5000 IU), autologous dendritic cells, anti-TNF golimumab, low-dose ATG, 3 mg 1-course anti-CD3 teplizumab, baricitinib, cyclosporin and 9/11 mg 2-course anti-CD3 teplizumab but with substantial heterogeneity present (I2 = 66%). Azathioprine ranked highest (median ranking 3rd); however, rankings demonstrated relatively wide confidence intervals and thus uncertainty in exact rank order of near adjacent therapies. Risk of bias assessment identified poor reporting, particularly in older trials, but few studies demonstrated high risk overall.

Conclusions: Eleven of 42 interventions demonstrated statistically significantly higher C-peptide levels than placebo at 12 months in the network meta-analysis. These results have identified the 11 most promising therapies trialled and help to direct future head-to-head clinical trials to support approvals for interventions to treat those newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. However, data for some interventions originated from small studies (mesenchymal stem cell therapies, azathioprine, autologous dendritic cells) and findings should be considered as hypothesis generating and interpreted with caution due to evidence heterogeneity.

Systematic review registration: The protocol for the systematic review was registered on PROSPERO, the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (registration: CRD42018107904).

新诊断为1型糖尿病患者的胰岛素分泌β细胞功能的干预措施的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析:免疫调节疗法的随机对照试验结果。
背景:1型糖尿病的特征是免疫介导的胰腺细胞破坏。我们的目的是确定免疫疗法在新诊断的(3期)1型糖尿病患者中保留剩余β细胞功能的有效性。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane CENTRAL和试验注册库,检索截止至2024年7月31日。新诊断的1型糖尿病患者采用免疫疗法保存β细胞的随机对照试验纳入其中。数据提取使用定制的,试点提取表。使用Cochrane风险偏倚工具1评估偏倚风险。随机效应网络荟萃分析在r进行,主要结局是c肽。干预措施按班级进行分析。结果:纳入60项试验(4597例患者,32个干预类别)。42项干预措施的41项试验符合网络荟萃分析的条件。11项干预在12个月时显示c肽水平显著高于安慰剂,间充质干细胞(自体和沃顿氏胶状细胞)、硫唑嘌呤、干扰素(5000 IU)、自体树突状细胞、抗tnf - golimumab、低剂量ATG、3 mg 1疗程抗cd3 teplizumab、巴西替尼、环孢素和9/11 mg 2疗程抗cd3 teplizumab,但存在实质性异质性(I2 = 66%)。硫唑嘌呤排名最高(中位数排名第3);然而,排名显示出相对较宽的置信区间,因此在邻近治疗的确切排名顺序上存在不确定性。偏倚风险评估发现报告不佳,特别是在较早的试验中,但很少有研究表明总体风险高。结论:在网络荟萃分析中,42项干预措施中有11项在12个月时显示c肽水平显著高于安慰剂。这些结果已经确定了11种最有希望的治疗方法,并有助于指导未来的正面临床试验,以支持批准治疗新诊断为1型糖尿病的干预措施。然而,一些干预措施的数据来自小型研究(间充质干细胞治疗、硫唑嘌呤、自体树突状细胞),由于证据异质性,研究结果应被视为假设生成,并应谨慎解释。系统评价注册:系统评价方案在国际前瞻性系统评价注册数据库PROSPERO上注册(注册号:CRD42018107904)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信