↓ Skip to main content

Antithymocyte globulin therapy for patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: 2 year results of a randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Antithymocyte globulin therapy for patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: 2 year results of a randomised trial
Published in
Diabetologia, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00125-016-3917-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen E. Gitelman, Peter A. Gottlieb, Eric I. Felner, Steven M. Willi, Lynda K. Fisher, Antoinette Moran, Michael Gottschalk, Wayne V. Moore, Ashley Pinckney, Lynette Keyes-Elstein, Kristina M. Harris, Sai Kanaparthi, Deborah Phippard, Linna Ding, Jeffrey A. Bluestone, Mario R. Ehlers, the ITN START Study Team

Abstract

Type 1 diabetes results from T cell mediated destruction of beta cells. We conducted a trial of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) in new-onset type 1 diabetes (the Study of Thymoglobulin to ARrest T1D [START] trial). Our goal was to evaluate the longer-term safety and efficacy of ATG in preserving islet function at 2 years. A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 6.5 mg/kg ATG (Thymoglobulin) vs placebo in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes was conducted at seven university medical centres and one Children's Hospital in the USA. The site-stratified randomisation scheme was computer generated at the data coordinating centre using permuted-blocks of size 3 or 6. Eligible participants were between the ages of 12 and 35, and enrolled within 100 days from diagnosis. Subjects were randomised to 6.5 mg/kg ATG (thymoglobulin) vs placebo in a 2:1 ratio. Participants were blinded, and the study design included two sequential patient-care teams: an unblinded study-drug administration team (for the first 8 weeks), and a blinded diabetes management team (for the remainder of the study). Endpoints assessed at 24 months included meal-stimulated C-peptide AUC, safety and immunological responses. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled; at 2 years, 35 assigned to ATG and 16 to placebo completed the study. The pre-specified endpoints were not met. In post hoc analyses, older patients (age 22-35 years) in the ATG group had significantly greater C-peptide AUCs at 24 months than placebo patients. Using complete preservation of baseline C-peptide at 24 months as threshold, nine of 35 ATG-treated participants (vs 2/16 placebo participants) were classified as responders; nine of 11 responders (67%) were older. All participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), with 1,148 events in the 38 ATG participants vs 415 in the 20 placebo participants; a comparable number of infections were noted in the ATG and placebo groups, with no opportunistic infections nor difficulty clearing infections in either group. Circulating T cell subsets depleted by ATG partially reconstituted, but regulatory, naive and central memory subsets remained significantly depleted at 24 months. Beta cell autoantibodies did not change over the 24 months in the ATG-treated or placebo participants. At 12 months, ATG-treated participants had similar humoral immune responses to tetanus and HepA vaccines as placebo-treated participants, and no increased infections. A brief course of ATG substantially depleted T cell subsets, including regulatory cells, but did not preserve islet function 24 months later in the majority of patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes. ATG preserved C-peptide secretion in older participants, which may warrant further study. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00515099 PUBLIC DATA REPOSITORY: START datasets are available in TrialShare www.itntrialshare.org FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The trial was conducted by the Immune Tolerance Network (ITN).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 15%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Researcher 14 10%
Professor 7 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 51 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 56 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#4,430
of 5,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,097
of 302,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#75
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 302,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.