Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Near-Complete Cure For Diabetes In Two Years?

Posted by kdawson on Sat Dec 16, 2006 06:21 PM
from the medical-miracle dept.
resistant writes "Researchers at a Toronto hospital have stumbled upon a dramatic treatment for mouse diabetes, with large implications for the treatment of diabetes in humans. From the article: 'The islet inflammation cleared up and the diabetes was gone. Some have remained in that state for as long as four months, with just one injection... They also discovered that their treatments curbed the insulin resistance that is the hallmark of Type 2 diabetes, and that insulin resistance is a major factor in Type 1 diabetes, suggesting the two illnesses are quite similar.'"
Update: 12/17 03:46 GMT by KD : resistant adds that the Cell Journal article is posted as a PDF as well as in plain text.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Researchers May Have Found Cause of Type 2 Diabetes 181 comments
ozmanjusri writes "Scientists at Sydney's Garvan Institute have identified an enzyme called PKCepsilon as the active agent that blocks the production of insulin in diabetics. Insulin injections and implants try to control levels but do not address the reasons why insulin production is failing. This discovery may allow pharmaceutical companies to develop a drug to block the enzyme, allowing cells in the pancreas to function normally, though the team's leader, Trevor Biden, says 'What we've identified is a target that we can now latch onto to get therapy, but the journey from target to tablet of course is a long one ... It's probably going to take another 10 years at least to get something that's effective in humans.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:22PM (#17272216)
    Sweet!
  • IAT1D (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I am a Type 1 Diabetic, and what's particularly interesting about this is that this cure is found in a totally new area of study. Most of the treatments, such as Dr. Faustman's rather successful treatment up at Harvard, is that this treats the nervous system rather than the immune system. If this turns out to be true, it's a HUGE discovery for this reason alone.
  • Hm (Score:5, Insightful)

    TFA Title: Diabetes breakthrough
    Slashdot Title: Near-Complete Cure For Diabetes in Two Years?
  • by Timesprout (579035) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:27PM (#17272274)
    You have to respond 'Mouse' to the question:

    "Are you a man or mouse?"

    for the injection to be successful, otherwise you just develop a serious cheese addiction.
  • by the_humeister (922869) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:28PM (#17272286)
    I'd wait until human trials before getting too excited. The article is short on details, but this tidbit is interesting:
    They also discovered that their treatments curbed the insulin resistance that is the hallmark of Type 2 diabetes, and that insulin resistance is a major factor in Type 1 diabetes, suggesting the two illnesses are quite similar.
    Insulin resistance in type 1 diabetes? It'd be nice if they linked to the published article, unless they haven't published it yet.
    • I'd wait until human trials before getting too excited.

      FTFA: The researchers caution they have yet to confirm their findings in people, but say they expect results from human studies within a year or so.

      If the Canadian version of the FDA lets them fast track the approval process, this really could be the kind of medicine that is "five years" away instead of "five, but we really mean 10 years".

      Anyways, this treatment is only a 'temporary' (up to 4 months for some mice) cure. That's better than nothing though

    • by MrPotatoeHead (136285) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:53PM (#17272486)
      ok, ok, i'll do the work for you...

      http://www.cell.com/content/article/abstract?uid=P IIS0092867406014656 [cell.com]

      the link to the PDF for the entire article is to the right of the page
    • by smart2000 (28662) <karl@karlkraft.com> on Saturday December 16 2006, @07:14PM (#17272660) Homepage
      Insulin resistance in type 1 diabetes? It'd be nice if they linked to the published article, unless they haven't published it yet.

      Yes, because using Google is so damn hard. Enter "Cell Journal" into Google. First link. The Article [cell.com] is available.

      • by Fnkmaster (89084) on Saturday December 16 2006, @07:42PM (#17272848)
        That's possibly the most absurd thing I've ever read. If animal studies reveal nothing, why do they get performed? It's not like some evil corporate entity is forcing animal studies on scientists who secretly wish they could just stick these compounds in humans without bothering to test them out on animals first. No ethical scientist would ever want to do that and risk killing or injuring somebody without animal safety data, or getting somebody's hopes up without any efficacy testing in an animal model first.

        Specific animals are usually chosen for studies because certain biological systems function in a very similar way to the relevant human biological system. Heck, plenty of drugs that work on humans work on cats and dogs and probably lots of mammals. Certain NSAIDs, antibiotics, steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, benzodiazepenes (anti-anxiety drugs like valium), and some chemotherapy agents developed for use in humans, just to name a few drugs commonly used with cats and dogs off the top of my head.

        Your suggestion then that the results of animal trials bear "no relation" to how they will perform in humans is simply nonsensical. Many drugs may seem to be active in animals, but in humans turn out to be no better than other drugs on the market in terms of efficacy and worse in terms of side effects, which commonly leads to dropping them from commercialization. Differential comparisons of drug efficacy in animal models aren't necessarily useful to determining which drugs will be the most effective in humans, and side effects are not always equivalent, but that's not the point of animal trials - the point is to establish that the basic biological mechanism works in vivo and to get a vague concept of possible safe dosing in an animal model before moving to initial human safety tests.

        I fail to see how you and the other animal rights loonies can have such a poor grasp of how scientific research works and yet feel qualified to comment so authoritatively on it.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Then there was Thalidomide. It cause no increase in birth defect rates in any of the typical animal test species, such as mice, rabbits or pigs, which is why it was approved for human use. It wasn't until after the first human casualties were already being reported in Europe that a U.S. researcher got evidence of animal birth defects, and that took testing on exotics such as horses. The FDA employee who blocked sale in the US could only justify it as 'playing a hunch' and was almost fired before it turned o
  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:35PM (#17272350)
    Researchers at a Toronto hospital have stumbled upon a dramatic treatment for mouse diabetes
    This was a tremendous advancement. Mice diabetes it the country's great silent killer, affecting some 200-300 billion obese mice each year who can't squeak in their own defense. Until then, please, leave out celery sticks instead of cheese.
  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:35PM (#17272352)
    I guess the planet is really ruled by mice and that they are forcing scientists the world over to work on curing mouse diseases, as expounded in HHGG.
  • Inflamation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fozzy1015 (264592) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:37PM (#17272360)
    Very interesting. Just a couple weeks ago NPR had an interview with three doctors about how the body's inflammation response is turning out to play a much larger role in diseases then previously thought. link [npr.org]
  • by PIPBoy3000 (619296) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:45PM (#17272430)
    I was reading a recent article about how someone theorized that humans currently have an overactive immune system. Long ago, a particularly nasty disease swept through the human population and only those with the most aggressive immune system survived. Of course, the legacy of this was that we have auto-immune diseases, asthma, and diabetes. Inflammation is great when fighting off invaders, but for ordinary living it's not so great.
  • by Majestik (101669) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:55PM (#17272504)
    Given the relationship between insulin levels and weight lost/gain, I wonder if this wil get commercialized as a weight loss solution faster than a diabetes cure.

  • Interesting treatment of diabetes but it is still years away for human use. Until then we have to live with complete 100% cure to diabetes -- pancreas transplant. Does anyone plan on donating their healthy pancreas when they die?
  • of it. This is not some fancy targeted new drug. They simply injected capsiacin to block the pain nerves leading into the pancrease. Capsaicin blocks the k receptor which is why the topical capsaicin pain creams work so well. They noticed a similarity in the nerves leading into the pancrease and other pain nerve clusters so they made a simple inject. I would say it is a long way from a treatment, but it changed the paradigm of how to target diabetes drugs in a simple logical way. That is why this is interesting.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I am sorry for the pesimistic title. But as a Diabetic for the last 21 years, I have seen it all. If you follow this stuff, there seems to be one landmark approach after the other.

    And what happens?

    Very little. The approach rarely pans out or is sustainable, like the islet transplant techniques of a few years ago.

    Diabetics, go for a run. Eat sensibly, and care for your body. Anything long term, is years, perhaps decades away.

    --Alan
    • by smart2000 (28662) <karl@karlkraft.com> on Saturday December 16 2006, @07:32PM (#17272782) Homepage
      ...as a Diabetic for the last 21 years, I have seen it all. If you follow this stuff, there seems to be one landmark approach after the other. And what happens? Very little. ....... Anything long term, is years, perhaps decades away.

      My son is a Type I diabetic and last month he had to do a year based timeline in math to learn about positive/negative integers. He did his on the discoveries related to diabetes and in particular insulin.

      Lots of progress has been made over the years, and in particular the last 3 decades. The type of insulin he uses is just slightly older than he is.

      The media is great at making everything seem like it is the next big discovery(witness the title of this article), but this is a pretty significant change in the understanding of the causes and possible cures of diabetes.

      The injected substance is a natural substance already approved for injection for other medical purposes, and for this particular purpose (affecting nerve cells), although prior to this research no one had associated nerve cells with the onset of diabetes.

      This research is as signifcant as it gets. Up there with the discovery of anti-biotics, and it represents a wave of change in how several diseases will be treated in the coming decade.

    • by LauraW (662560) on Saturday December 16 2006, @07:44PM (#17272858)

      I am (or was) a type 2 diabetic myself, so I know about getting my hopes up. A lot of strange things are happening in diabetes research lately, though, and it's starting to look like nobody really understood how it worked. Maybe they still don't, but they're at least starting to get a clue.

      As for myself, I finally gave up on dieting last summer and opted for weight loss surgery. For some reason that nobody really understands yet, some forms of weight loss surgery cure type 2 diabetes about 75% of the time. Those were good enough odds for me, and I got lucky: it worked. I've been off of all the diabetes medications since the day I got out of the hospital. My blood sugar, while not quite down in the normal range yet, is lower than it was before then surgery when I was taking the medications. And losing 75 pounds probably didn't hurt either. :-) This isn't for everyone, but at least there are starting to be options.

  • I predict these complaints:

    - Animal-rights wackos will complain about the animal testing involved.
    - Fat-haters will complain this lets fat people get away with being fat without worrying about dieing from diabetes.
    - And most of all, what about the hated drug companies who make a profit from this? How dare they expect to make a little money when all their drug does is cure diabetes? Greedy corporate bastards.
  • it probably would have been easier to just quit tariffing sugar and subsidizing corn so that they stop using the bane we know as "high fructose corn syrup".

    I'm just sayin...
  • by NorbrookC (674063) on Saturday December 16 2006, @08:19PM (#17273054) Journal
    http://www.cell.com/ [cell.com]

    The newspaper article is a not quite accurate either, although it has less hyperbole than the parent. What the study actually says is that it appears that the sensory nervous system is playing a role in the development and progression of diabetes. That is the "blockbuster", since it was thought to be an autoimmune disease.

    If verified, it provides yet another avenue of investigation into diabetes control and possibly cure, but this is a first study. A lot of work needs to be done to go between this and a standard treatment.

    Important? Yes. Break out the champagne and declare diabetes is cured? No.

  • by toonerh (518351) * on Saturday December 16 2006, @09:23PM (#17273544)
    These are brave researchers to challenge the orthodox view of purely auto-immune diabetes. It reminds me of what resistance there was to redefining ulcers as a curable inflection, versus a psychological or personality flaw that was incurable or required surgery removing most of the stomach. In the end Drs. Warren and Marshall won a Nobel prize, but not before enduring years of abuse and almost having their careers destroyed. I hope medicine is more open to radical new ideas today.
    • Re:Mouse diabetes? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Aladrin (926209) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:28PM (#17272288)
      Why? They share most of the same body parts, organs and systems. Everything works the same way as it does in us. We're only a few ticks away on the genetic map. I'd be more surprised if they didn't work like us.
      • by Linker3000 (626634) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:35PM (#17272344)
        Yep, they work like - except that they operate their computers with a wireless or corded 'bloke' and read self-improvement books like "who moved my burger"
        • Drat...you beat me to it. I was going to ask if the cure worked only on USB mice, or if it was effective on PS/2 and serial mice too.
    • I'm just amazed rodents share as many of our ailments as they do.

      Umm, I'm not sure if that was a joke or not, but mice share so many of the ailments that we do because we give them to 'em.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Because insulin was discovered via experiments on dogs, and for the first ~60 years of treatment, insulin was produced from pig and cow pancreases.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:58PM (#17272526)
        You mean like the PETA VP, Mary Beth Sweetland, who is a type A diabetic and rationalized "I don't see myself as a hypocrite; I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
        • Mary Beth Sweetland: Type A terrorist, hypocrite, and all-around bitch. She needs to fight for the animals so they can support her western lifestyle.
    • by bigtrike (904535) on Saturday December 16 2006, @07:02PM (#17272560)
      Even if it's perpetually a few years away, that's better than perpetually 20 years away, right?
    • by smart2000 (28662) <karl@karlkraft.com> on Saturday December 16 2006, @07:17PM (#17272686) Homepage
      This isn't a press release about some research conducted over the weekend. If you read the article (I know it is /. tradition to never RTFA), you will see they are talking about their publication in the journal Cell, which is a pretty respected medical journal. The article was written in May, and only published a few days ago. It has been peer reviewed, and your characterization that it is just a scam for fame and fortune is a sad insight into the state of drive-by criticism so prevalent on the internet these days.
      • by Compuser (14899) on Saturday December 16 2006, @08:07PM (#17272984)
        I would only add that Cell is not just "a pretty respected medical journal".
        It, along with Nature and Science, is one of the big three, the most respected
        journals in most sciences. This does not guarantee against fraud but this is
        not science by press release either. The other thing is that they talk of human
        trials. Just to get approved for those you need buttload of evidence and it is
        reviewed very thoroughly and it will be tested by many people, not just study
        authors. Everything about this work seems proper, though once again there is no
        real guarantee against fraud.
    • because this was such a shocking discovery. The one thing about science is that it can stagnate. It does because we assume we know the whats and whys. This leads to the ignoring of approaches simply because, well we "just know" how it works. Like when we thought we knew everything about protiens, rna, and such, along comes an advance along lines not previously considered, whether by chance or just the luck of having the right group of people.

      For me this is great news, my mother has been taking insulin shots for nearly 30 years. Recently animal based insulin products were removed from use, at least from the pool of what she has available. This wasn't some nefarious scheme of drug companies. It is because doctors perceived the new insulins to be better and easier to acquire. What is has led to is pure annoyance and even life threatening situations for many diabetics. Instead of two shots a days she was now in a regimen of 4 or more, using two different types; fast acting and slow acting. Even with multiple blood tests per day, watching what she was eating, she still went into conditions near death when her blood sugar either dropped into the teens or went over 500.

      On a side note, bless my mother, she cannot recall my phone number all the time. She was alone at home as my father was away on a trip with friends and she had a bad reaction. She knew she was in trouble and managed to get some food down but passed out. When she awoke, very groggy and barely concious she managed to dial 911. The paradmedics could not enter the house as it was locked and they are not permitted to break down doors. She actually recalled my phone number and 911 contacted me. Needless to say I made a 10 minute trip in record time. Her blood sugar was in the low 20s when the Paramedics tested it. They would not even more her until they could get her stable. She was barely there. They actually had an ambulance on its way. Obviously she recovered.

      Now because of this issue it was decided to put her on an insulin pump. A couple of people at work are also on the pump now, all for the same reason. It has become near impossible for some of them to regulate their blood sugar levels with the synthetics. So I look at a discovery like this as a near miracle. Hopefully the tests will prove out in a year or two. This type of discovery only happens because there are still people, working for either government, universities, and corporations, who defy common wisdom or by sheer luck stumble upon a whole new method.

      While I don't know how much study was being done in this direction I can only hope it spurs others to investigate similar treatments for health problems considered to be nearly known is cause and scope. Its this openess to ideas that may just save us all one day.

        • Why don't they let the paramedics break down doors? When my mother was very sick, and couldn't make it to the door, a couple of beefy fire-fighters with pry bars were called in to force an entry. They quickly broke in and evacuated her to a hospital.
          Those are fire-fighters, whose job it is to break into your home and douse a fire. A police officer could likewise do so, but not an EMT. Because EMTs and paramedics are not peace officers, and are not empowered to act in the name of the law. Most of the time, they're either employees of private companies (some profit, some NFP) that have a contract with the local municipality, or volunteer civilians.

          If you think that the paramedics & EMTs who come when you dial 9-1-1 should be able to break down the door, go find out what the law is in your area. In some states, I suspect they can break down doors. If your state doesn't let them, write to your legislators and governor asking for them to be granted that power.
          • Those are fire-fighters, whose job it is to break into your home and douse a fire. A police officer could likewise do so, but not an EMT. Because EMTs and paramedics are not peace officers, and are not empowered to act in the name of the law. Most of the time, they're either employees of private companies (some profit, some NFP) that have a contract with the local municipality, or volunteer civilians.

            EMTs and paramedics are very different things. Paramedics are much more highly trained and empowered, and i

    • by posterlogo (943853) on Saturday December 16 2006, @08:30PM (#17273156)
      I encourage you to read the primary literature of the study: http://www.cell.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=P IIS0092867406014656&highlight=salter [cell.com] Then your opinion may or may not change, or may or may not have any credibility left. As a trained scientist, I think this is a very remarkable study, far more promising then the stop-gap measures we currently have for diabetes treatment. Let's not make opinions based on headlines.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Or they could be publishing their findings, one of the hallmarks of legitimate scientific research that allows your peers in the field to reproduce or fail to reproduce your findings. This is how science works.

      Honestly, I do understand your complaint. A paper gets published by a grad student, or some joker who can't even get their PhD and is squeaking out a master's degree shows up at a poster session with a pile of photocopied papers and some newspaper reporter wandering through turns it into a wire st

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      ***I know I know. They want hype and venture capital or fame or some such, but I can't count the number of things that are just a few years away and then never materialized.***

      In general, that's a fair viewpoint, but this may well be a BIG deal and very likely not in that class. Potentially, it may be more like Gerhard Domagk's discovery in 1932 that a dye called Prontosil (Sulfanilamide) could kill Streptococcus in vitro without (usually) killing the patient. Basically the sulfa drugs were the first dr

    • Look, I'm the biggest pro-ponent of a government-managed healthcare system. But the people who come up with these things deserve a little for their effort.

      What's with every man Jack assuming he deserves the absolute best medicines and procedures for the lowest price?

      "I wanted the Mercedes of healthcare, but I could only afford Kia!"

      Kia makes a damn good cheap car tho.
    • Yes, sadly the purpose of a drug company and drug research is not to help people and cure diseases, its to pad the bottom line of the drug company shareholders. But then its like any corporation, no matter how well meaning its members might be, its purpose is to run roughshod over the lives of its customers and suck as much cash out of their hands and into its owner's/shareholder's pockets, period.

      If they develop a full blown cure, or an injectable immunization system or whatever, you can bet it will cost a
      • Yes, sadly the purpose of a drug company and drug research is not to help people and cure diseases, its to pad the bottom line of the drug company shareholders.

        I am not a libertarian, but I am suspicious of demands that "those other people should be more self-sacrificing". Everybody complains about greedy drug companies, but except in rare cases, the folks complaining aren't taking 2nd jobs so they can donate the extra income to support medical research. It seems that it's somebody else's responsibility

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      They are similar in name because of the symptoms, not because of the underlying cause.

      Type 1 Diabetes is caused when the immune system attacks the islet cells in the pancreas. The islet cells are what produce insulin and when they shut down from the attack, your blood sugar levels rise. (Slowly at first, but at more islet cells are killed/incapacitated your glucose levels go steadily higher.) This can lead to circulation problems, blindness, and death among other things if not controled by injections of ins
    • by smart2000 (28662) <karl@karlkraft.com> on Saturday December 16 2006, @08:31PM (#17273160) Homepage
      Unfortunately the insurance companies, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies here make too much money on diabetes. They will: A) Never allow the cure to be FDA Approved or B) Just not have it as an 'Approved' treatment and make you pay for it out of pocket Very sad, but very true.

      Again with the conspiracy theories. Take off the damn tin foil. This is already a FDA approved treatment. Just this particular medical application is off-label. And the FDA isn't going to have much say in whether this is approved in Canada where the research is being done.