Consortium-based approach to receiving an EMA qualification opinion on the use of islet autoantibodies as enrichment biomarkers in type 1 diabetes clinical studies.

The development of medical products that can delay or prevent progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes faces many challenges. Of note, optimising patient selection for type 1 diabetes prevention clinical trials is hindered by significant patient heterogeneity and a lack of characterisation of the time-varying probability of progression to stage 3 type 1 diabetes in individuals positive for two or more islet autoantibodies. To meet these needs, the Critical Path Institute's Type 1 Diabetes Consortium was launched in 2017 as a pre-competitive public-private partnership between stakeholders from the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy groups, philanthropic organisations, clinical researchers, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. The Type 1 Diabetes Consortium acquired and aggregated data from three longitudinal observational studies, Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY), Diabetes Autoimmunity Study in the Young (DAISY) and TrialNet Pathway to Prevention (TN01), and used analysis subsets of these data to support the model-based qualification of islet autoantibodies as enrichment biomarkers for patient selection in type 1 diabetes prevention trials, including registration studies. The Type 1 Diabetes Consortium has now received a qualification opinion from the European Medicines Agency for the use of these biomarkers, a major success for the field of type 1 diabetes. This endorsement will improve product developers' ability to design clinical trials of agents intended to prevent or delay type 1 diabetes that are reduced in size and/or length, while being adequately powered.

Defining outcomes for ß-cell replacement therapy in the treatment of diabetes: a consensus report on the Igls criteria from the IPITA/EPITA opinion leaders workshop.

ß-cell replacement therapy, available currently as pancreas or islet transplantation, has developed without a clear definition of graft functional and clinical outcomes. The International Pancreas & Islet Transplant Association (IPITA) and European Pancreas & Islet Transplantation Association (EPITA) held a workshop to develop consensus for an IPITA/EPITA Statement on the definition of function and failure of current and future forms of ß-cell replacement therapy. There was consensus that ß-cell replacement therapy could be considered as a treatment for ß-cell failure, regardless of etiology and without requiring undetectable C-peptide, accompanied by glycemic instability with either problematic hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Glycemic control should be assessed at a minimum by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c ) and the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia. Optimal ß-cell graft function is defined by near-normal glycemic control [HbA1c  ≤ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol)] without severe hypoglycemia or requirement for insulin or other antihyperglycemic therapy, and with an increase over pretransplant measurement of C-peptide. Good ß-cell graft function requires HbA1c  < 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without severe hypoglycemia and with a significant (>50%) reduction in insulin requirements and restoration of clinically significant C-peptide production. Marginal ß-cell graft function is defined by failure to achieve HbA1c  < 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), the occurrence of any severe hypoglycemia, or less than 50% reduction in insulin requirements when there is restoration of clinically significant C-peptide production documented by improvement in hypoglycemia awareness/severity, or glycemic variability/lability. A failed ß-cell graft is defined by the absence of any evidence for clinically significant C-peptide production. Optimal and good functional outcomes are considered successful clinical outcomes.

Evidence for C-Peptide as a Validated Surrogate to Predict Clinical Benefits in Trials of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune disease in which destruction of pancreatic ß-cells causes life-threatening metabolic dysregulation. Numerous approaches are envisioned for new therapies, but limitations of current clinical outcome measures are significant disincentives to development efforts. C-peptide, a direct byproduct of proinsulin processing, is a quantitative biomarker of ß-cell function that is not cleared by the liver and can be measured in the peripheral blood. Studies of quantitative measures of ß-cell function have established a predictive relationship between stimulated C-peptide as a measure of ß-cell function and clinical benefits. C-peptide levels at diagnosis are often high enough to afford glycemic control benefits associated with protection from end-organ complications of diabetes, and even lower levels offer protection from severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes, as observed in large prospective cohort studies and interventional trials of islet transplantation. These observations support consideration of C-peptide not just as a biomarker of ß-cell function but also as a specific, sensitive, feasible, and clinically meaningful outcome defining ß-cell preservation or restoration for clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies. Regulatory acceptance of C-peptide as a validated surrogate for demonstration of efficacy would greatly facilitate development of disease-modifying therapies for type 1 diabetes.

C-peptide and metabolic outcomes in trials of disease modifying therapy in new-onset type 1 diabetes: an individual participant meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic outcomes in type 1 diabetes remain suboptimal. Disease modifying therapy to prevent ß-cell loss presents an alternative treatment framework but the effect on metabolic outcomes is unclear. We, therefore, aimed to define the relationship between insulin C-peptide as a marker of ß-cell function and metabolic outcomes in new-onset type 1 diabetes. METHODS: 21 trials of disease-modifying interventions within 100 days of type 1 diabetes diagnosis comprising 1315 adults (ie, those 18 years and older) and 1396 children (ie, those younger than 18 years) were combined. Endpoints assessed were stimulated area under the curve C-peptide, HbA1c, insulin use, hypoglycaemic events, and composite scores (such as insulin dose adjusted A1c, total daily insulin, U/kg per day, and BETA-2 score). Positive studies were defined as those meeting their primary endpoint. Differences in outcomes between active and control groups were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank test. FINDINGS: 6 months after treatment, a 24·8% greater C-peptide preservation in positive studies was associated with a 0·55% lower HbA1c (p<0·0001), with differences being detectable as early as 3 months. Cross-sectional analysis, combining positive and negative studies, was consistent with this proportionality: a 55% improvement in C-peptide preservation was associated with 0·64% lower HbA1c (p<0·0001). Higher initial C-peptide levels and greater preservation were associated with greater improvement in HbA1c. For HbA1c, IDAAC, and BETA-2 score, sample size predictions indicated that 2-3 times as many participants per group would be required to show a difference at 6 months as compared with C-peptide. Detecting a reduction in hypoglycaemia was affected by reporting methods. INTERPRETATION: Interventions that preserve ß-cell function are effective at improving metabolic outcomes in new-onset type 1 diabetes, confirming their potential as adjuncts to insulin. We have shown that improvements in HbA1c are directly proportional to the degree of C-peptide preservation, quantifying this relationship, and supporting the use of C-peptides as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials. FUNDING: JDRF and Diabetes UK.

Innovative Designs and Logistical Considerations for Expedited Clinical Development of Combination Disease-Modifying Treatments for Type 1 Diabetes.

It has been 100 years since the life-saving discovery of insulin, yet daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains challenging. Even with closed-loop systems, the prevailing need for persons with T1D to attempt to match the kinetics of insulin activity with the kinetics of carbohydrate metabolism, alongside dynamic life factors affecting insulin requirements, results in the need for frequent interventions to adjust insulin dosages or consume carbohydrates to correct mismatches. Moreover, peripheral insulin dosing leaves the liver underinsulinized and hyperglucagonemic and peripheral tissues overinsulinized relative to their normal physiologic roles in glucose homeostasis. Disease-modifying therapies (DMT) to preserve and/or restore functional ß-cell mass with controlled or corrected autoimmunity would simplify exogenous insulin need, thereby reducing disease mortality, morbidity, and management burdens. However, identifying effective DMTs for T1D has proven complex. There is some consensus that combination DMTs are needed for more meaningful clinical benefit. Other complexities are addressable with more innovative trial designs and logistics. While no DMT has yet been approved for marketing, existing regulatory guidance provides opportunities to further "de-risk" development. The T1D development ecosystem can accelerate progress by using more innovative ways for testing DMTs for T1D. This perspective outlines suggestions for accelerating evaluation of candidate T1D DMTs, including combination therapies, by use of innovative trial designs, enhanced logistical coordination of efforts, and regulatory guidance for expedited development, combination therapies, and adaptive designs.

Preferences for Outcomes Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Caregivers of Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

PURPOSE: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is the accepted measure of effectiveness for type 1 diabetes therapies. We investigated preferences for measures of diabetes control in addition to HbA1c among adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers of children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Using discrete-choice experiment methodology, surveys for adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers presented choices between hypothetical treatments described by six attributes with varying levels: HbA1c, time in optimal glucose range, weekly number and severity of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, additional disease management time, and additional treatment cost. Choice data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. RESULTS: A total of 300 adults with type 1 diabetes and 400 caregivers completed the survey. Adults and caregivers placed the most importance on reducing hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events. For adults, avoiding 1-5 mild-to-moderate hypoglycemic events (glucose 54-69 mg/dL)/week was five times more important than being a half-point above target HbA1c. Avoiding 1-5 hyperglycemic events (glucose >180 mg/dL)/week was seven times more important than being a half-point above target HbA1c. Additional time in optimal glucose range was as important as a reduction greater than a half-point in HbA1c. Avoiding hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic events was more important than all other outcomes for caregivers of younger children. Caregivers of children >12 years placed relatively more weight on avoiding hypoglycemic events <54 mg/dL than those with younger children and preferred avoiding additional costs. CONCLUSION: Adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers prioritize controlling hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, including mild-to-moderate events. These preferences should be considered in drug development and regulatory decisions.

Defining Outcomes for ß-cell Replacement Therapy in the Treatment of Diabetes: A Consensus Report on the Igls Criteria From the IPITA/EPITA Opinion Leaders Workshop.

ß-cell replacement therapy, available currently as pancreas or islet transplantation, has developed without a clear definition of graft functional and clinical outcomes. The International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association and European Pancreas and Islet Transplantation Association held a workshop to develop consensus for an International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association and European Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association Statement on the definition of function and failure of current and future forms of ß-cell replacement therapy. There was consensus that ß-cell replacement therapy could be considered as a treatment for ß-cell failure, regardless of etiology and without requiring undetectable C-peptide, accompanied by glycemic instability with either problematic hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Glycemic control should be assessed at a minimum by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia. Optimal ß-cell graft function is defined by near-normal glycemic control (HbA1c ≤6.5% [48 mmol/mol]) without severe hypoglycemia or requirement for insulin or other antihyperglycemic therapy, and with an increase over pretransplant measurement of C-peptide. Good ß-cell graft function requires HbA1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without severe hypoglycemia and with a significant (>50%) reduction in insulin requirements and restoration of clinically significant C-peptide production. Marginal ß-cell graft function is defined by failure to achieve HbA1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), the occurrence of any severe hypoglycemia, or less than 50% reduction in insulin requirements when there is restoration of clinically significant C-peptide production documented by improvement in hypoglycemia awareness/severity, or glycemic variability/lability. A failed ß-cell graft is defined by the absence of any evidence for clinically significant C-peptide production. Optimal and good function are considered successful clinical outcomes.