New Blog Post: GNbAC1 Starts A Phase-II? Trial


Posted a new blog on a possible cure for type-1 diabetes which is going through early tests on people. It is called “GNbAC1” and is based on a unique theory of what causes type-1 diabetes. Best of all, they are going to have some results in a few months, and more results in a year:



Fascinating, thanks!


Is this :arrow_down: because it is believed that it would only work on those who were recently diagnosed? Or did they simply choose recently diagnosed for the trial?

This study has enrolled 60 people who were diagnosed with type-1 diabetes within the last 4 year.


I consider people to be recently diagnosed (or “honeymooners”) if they are within 1 year of diagnosis. So this study, which recruits anyone within 4 years of diagnosis is not limited to the recently diagnosed, in my mind.



0-4 years just seemed to be a very small subset of the diabetic population.

The term “recently diagnosed” is somewhat subjective.

For someone who was diagnosed in the early 1970’s, anyone diagnosed 0-4 years ago is still somewhat “recently diagnosed”. :grinning:


Yeah, I would say 4 years is very subjective. Ask someone whose had the disease for 30 years to 70 or 80 years… 4 years is a blink!


Rather than basing it on the passage of time, I might rather define the relevant subset as those who still have c-peptide above some threshold, i.e., the autoimmune damage is only partial, not nearly complete. …On the assumption that this group is best situated to get a prompt and significant recovery if the autoimmune process is halted.


I agree that a c-peptide threshold might be a better basis than passage of time. I use passage of time for two reasons: First, because everyone knows how long it has been since they were diagnosed. So if I say “recruiting people within 1 year of dx” everyone knows if they are in or out. Not everyone knows their c-peptide numbers. (Personal example: my daughter has never had her’s tested.) Even if she had them tested years ago, they clearly change over time, so that number might not be accurate now. Second reason: years ago, when I started this, some studies had “passage of time” entrance requirements, but not c-peptide thresholds. C-peptide testing was not as common 10 years ago as it is now. Now almost all studies have both requirements, but now I’m in the habit of just using passage of time. Is it a good habit? Not sure. But since I don’t know my own daughter’s C-peptide numbers, I’m not likely to change.

Do you know what your C-peptides are? If I published a blog saying only people with C-peptide above X (or below Y) were helped, would that be useful to you?

(Also, I do think the situation is worse for people with LADA, because my “one year” definition of honeymoon is really tailored to classic type-1 onset. My understanding is that LADA comes on more slowly, so my definition of honeymoon may not apply. I’m sorry for that.)



I take no umbrage at the time since diagnosed. As you have pointed out, c-peptide would be more accurate, but also more clumsy since only a few here know their current c-peptide level. I would vote to keep doing things the way you are, but if the study also includes a c-peptide you might want to mention that as well.


@joshualevy I recall reading a study not long ago that said changes in c-peptide and beta cell function continued until about the seven year mark. Sorry I don’t have a link handy, but the results of this study clearly showed that the “honeymoon” phase could last for up to seven years.