Moreover, to facilitate the pipeline, during the same period significant infrastructure was emerging in the form of clinical trial networks, within which

clinical studies could be conducted to agreed and standardized designs and protocols. The exemplar of this approach is Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet (http://www.diabetestrialnet.org). There was even significant and demonstrable interest in this disease space being displayed by large pharmaceutical concerns. Consequently, as a result of this constellation of events, in 2007 the clinical trial horizon for type 1 diabetes was viewed with the expectation of success and progress. Some 6 years on, several key questions emerge. What has become of the pipeline and the combination approaches? Using the same format as the 2007 paper, we have updated the data tables with new or contemporary information on trials conducted or in progress PARP inhibitor at that time, and added information on new and ongoing studies. Information-gathering

is based largely on the US National Institutes of Health-sponsored website ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the European equivalent (EU Clinical Trials Register; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/index.html), as well as our knowledge of the sector. Our analyses include studies conducted in the predisease setting, before diabetes onset, for both antigen-specific and non-antigen-specific approaches [primary (high genetic risk) and secondary (high risk identified by islet cell autoantibody positivity) GSI-IX purchase prevention studies, Tables 1 and 2, respectively] and trials in which recruitment centres on subjects who have already Mannose-binding protein-associated serine protease developed disease (intervention studies; Tables 3 and 4, respectively). There is a further

update on trials using combination approaches (Table 5). What have we learned from the clinical trials that have been conducted? Has our general understanding of the disease altered in any respect in the intervening period, such that we might review our therapeutic options? Pre-POINT study: dose finding in children with high genetic risk for type 1 diabetes EudraCT number: 2005-001621-29 Phase II in adults reports preservation of C-peptide at 12–18 months. Phase II in children reports no treatment effect Phase II completed Phase III terminated Anti-CD3 mAb hOKT3g1(Ala-Ala); drug subsequently known as Teplizumab Anti-CD3 mAb ChAglyCD3(TRX4); drug subsequently known as Otelixizumab With the premise that type 1 diabetes is an immune-mediated disorder, most efforts to intervene in disease pathogenesis involve immune-based therapy. Without exception, primary study end-points tend to focus on preservation of β cell function, as measured by stimulated C-peptide production after a standardized food challenge (oral glucose tolerance test, OGTT) or glucagon injection. This is a justifiable criterion that is accepted by regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.