FDA Approves a Treatment that Delays Onset of Type 1 Diabetes (go.com) 33
For the first time, America's Food and Drug Administration has "approved a treatment that can delay the onset of Type 1 diabetes," reports ABC News:
Teplizumab, a monoclonal antibody that will be marketed under the brand name Tzield from pharmaceutical companies ProventionBio and Sanofi, is administered through intravenous infusion. The injection was shown in clinical trials to delay onset of insulin-dependent Type 1 diabetes for patients with autoantibody markers of early risk by over two years, with hopes for some that it can delay onset even longer.... Tzield was approved to delay the onset of stage 3 Type 1 diabetes in adults and children ages 8 and up who currently have stage 2 Type 1 diabetes.
The medication is thought to slow down the body's attack on its own insulin-producing cells and thus give people more time before they become dependent on pharmaceutical insulin. Tzield is not suitable for people with insulin-dependent Type 1 diabetes, people who are pre-Type 2 diabetics or those with type 2 diabetes. "This approval is a watershed moment for the treatment and prevention of type 1 diabetes," said Dr. Mark S. Anderson, director of the University of California San Francisco Diabetes Center. "Until now, the only real therapy for patients has been a lifetime of insulin replacement. This new therapy targets and helps to halt the autoimmune process that leads to the loss of insulin...."
Studies have shown that 75% of people with these diagnostic markers usually become insulin-dependent within five years and nearly 100% at some point in their lifetime.
ABC News also shares this quote from Dr. John Sharretts, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "The drug's potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease."
The medication is thought to slow down the body's attack on its own insulin-producing cells and thus give people more time before they become dependent on pharmaceutical insulin. Tzield is not suitable for people with insulin-dependent Type 1 diabetes, people who are pre-Type 2 diabetics or those with type 2 diabetes. "This approval is a watershed moment for the treatment and prevention of type 1 diabetes," said Dr. Mark S. Anderson, director of the University of California San Francisco Diabetes Center. "Until now, the only real therapy for patients has been a lifetime of insulin replacement. This new therapy targets and helps to halt the autoimmune process that leads to the loss of insulin...."
Studies have shown that 75% of people with these diagnostic markers usually become insulin-dependent within five years and nearly 100% at some point in their lifetime.
ABC News also shares this quote from Dr. John Sharretts, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "The drug's potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease."
So, that's why the sudden abundance... (Score:2)
Not really. (Score:1)
... of "Do you have pre-diabetes" commercials on cable TV? Those commercials push you to a website to "take the test". Probably with a bunch of data harvesting that health insurance companies will want to know about you for the next time you renew your policy...
That's not "why". The "why" has always been about marking you as a target for future sales. That is the entire scope of most business. You only waking up to it now is just obtuse fog lifting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt it. Those are almost certainly directed at pre-type 2 (adult onset) diabetes. And this drug doesn't do a thing to treat that.
Type 1 diabetes is almost always detected in children or teens, and is (or appears to be) an autoimmune disease. Type 2 is a rather different problem, usually related to weight or diet.
Re: (Score:2)
more proof that conspiracy theories come from stupid people.
I'll tell you how to eradicate type1 diabetes (Score:3)
Type 1 diabetes is a genetic, hereditary disease. The vast majority of carriers develop symptoms years before they reach the age to proceate. I know you all see where I'm going with this.
The solution is for all type 1 diabetes sufferers to... wait for it... not have children. At least not children of their own.
I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion. During my lifetime, some people even associated me with nazis for it. But it's the simplest, most efficient, and frankly, in some cases, only solution for eliminating some of the most horrible, debilitating diseases that have plagued the human race for millenia.
I'm not talking about bening things like myopia or even daltonism. I'm talking about things like lactic acidosis, haemophilia, cystic fibrosis, etc. Diseases that either show symptoms before reproduction age or have perfectly accurate genetic tests available. All of these could be wiped off the face of the Earth in a few generations if only carriers chose to not have children.
But I also know full well that this will never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they're getting much better ways of allowing people with no pancreas (or even non-functional pancreas) to live a reasonable facsimile of a normal life....
Re: (Score:2)
Type 1 diabetes is a genetic, hereditary disease. The vast majority of carriers develop symptoms years before they reach the age to proceate. I know you all see where I'm going with this.
The reason people dislike your idea is most likely because of you being a hypocrite. Diabetes isn't the only genetic damage we have circulating around our gene pool. We, ALL, have damaged genes. So, if you want the people with "diabetes" thrown out of society via bad genes, I want the rest of you thrown out for your lack of intelligence genes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it used to be a very good argument. The problem is that it requires coordination on a scale that people are incapable of.
There is an alternate solution available now (well, actually quite soon) involving gene-line alterations via genetic modification. Currently the error rate is so high that it's a poor solution, but that's been improving rapidly, to the point that some people have seriously proposed it for certain rare diseases.
The problem with the modified solution is that it doesn't address th
Re: (Score:2)
"Genes alone are not enough." (Score:2)
Type 1 and type 2 diabetes have different causes, but there are two factors that are important in both. You inherit a predisposition to the disease, then something in your environment triggers it.
That's right: genes alone are not enough. One proof of this is identical twins. Identical twins have identical genes. Yet when one twin has type 1 diabetes, the other gets the disease, at most, only half the time. When one twin has type 2 diabetes, the other's risk is three in four at most
Re: (Score:2)
OK. But that's the way nearly all genes act. (I'm sure that there are several exceptions, but the only one I can think of off-hand is antennapedia,) Even most dominant genes have a gradient of strength that depends on their environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Genetics of Diabetes [diabetes.org]
Type 1 and type 2 diabetes have different causes, but there are two factors that are important in both. You inherit a predisposition to the disease, then something in your environment triggers it.
exactly, he also ignores that most people with the disposition do not develop the disease, ....except maybe in the us. so the simplest solution isn't eugenics but actually 1) not eating like a fucking pig and 2) not being a sugar junkie, which has a lot of bonus advantages as well.
Re: (Score:2)
For the OP, this is not a problem. It doesn't matter to him how many potentially normal people are never born due to his "solution", only that enough future lives are snuffed out so research can be devoted to his issues rather than someone else's.
A solution with massive collateral damage is still a solution, in other words.
"...so the simplest solution isn't eugenics but actually 1) not eating like a fucking pig and 2) not being a sugar junkie"
You don't know what type 1 diabetes is. Perhaps you should star
Re: (Score:2)
so you consider "1) not eating like a fucking pig and 2) not being a sugar junkie" to be a virtue (worth signaling). i got some news for you: that's just the baseline of a regular homo sapiens life, since its existence. improvise at your own risk, but that's not virtue, that's what's supposed to be the normal.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what type 1 diabetes is. Perhaps you should start by reading TFA. Also, that isn't even a solution for type 2 diabetes
oh, by the way, you're not only passively aggressive, you are also very wrong about type 2 diabetes. i hope that's just a coincidence, but i anyway recommend you read through this to protect yourself a serious heal risk. you will immediately grasp what the treatment is, and it will be familiar! no virtue signaling. pinky swear!
Diabetes is due to either the pancreas not producing enough insulin, or the cells of the body not responding properly to the insulin produced.[14] Insulin is a hormone which is responsible for helping glucose from food get into cells to be used for energy.[15] There are three main types of diabetes mellitus:[2]
Type 1 diabetes results from failure of the pancreas to produce enough insulin due to loss of beta cells.[2] This form was previously referred to as "insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus" or "juvenile diabetes".[2] The loss of beta cells is caused by an autoimmune response.[16] The cause of this autoimmune response is unknown.[2] Although Type 1 diabetes usually appears during childhood or adolescence, it can also develop in adults.[17]
Type 2 diabetes begins with insulin resistance, a condition in which cells fail to respond to insulin properly.[2] As the disease progresses, a lack of insulin may also develop.[18] This form was previously referred to as "non insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus" or "adult-onset diabetes".[2] Type 2 diabetes is more common in older adults, but a significant increase in the prevalence of obesity among children has led to more cases of type 2 diabetes in younger people.[19] The most common cause is a combination of excessive body weight and insufficient exercise.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: I'll tell you how to eradicate type1 diabetes (Score:2)
"But it's the simplest, most efficient, and frankly, in some cases, only solution for eliminating some of the most horrible, debilitating diseases that have plagued the human race for millenia."
You're absolutely right, you've identified a way to eliminate it. The question is not about the efficacy of it, it's about the humanity of it. We value human life and the right to procreate. We value that more than the inconvenience of dealing with these diseases in society. It's a cost-benefit calculation.
You ment
Re: (Score:2)
"What level of inconvenience is sufficient to warrant removing the right to procreation? Seems pretty tough to compare those."
That the OP doesn't like them. Clearly.
Other things that could reduce suffering: eliminating health care, shelter, weapons, self-defense, anything that might help people live longer. Food.
Death is the ultimate solution to every health issue, genetic or otherwise. The OP isn't offering insight, only a wish that people who are not like him hurry up and die.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's the simplest, most efficient, and frankly, in some cases, only solution for eliminating some of the most horrible, debilitating diseases that have plagued the human race for millenia.
It's the only solution now, but we may well figure out how to solve it another way (gene editing?) so the question is really how long it will likely take before that happens.
Diabetes has been eliminating itself, and yet (Score:2)
Type 1 diabetes has been killing children and teens before they could procreate for all of the hundreds of thousands of years we've been around as a species, and yet it's still with us. Evolution has been trying your solution, but it doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Type 1 diabetes has been killing children and teens before they could procreate for all of the hundreds of thousands of years
[Citation Needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Type 1 diabetes can appear at any age, but it appears at two noticeable peaks. The first peak occurs in children between 4 and 7 years old. The second is in children between 10 and 14 years old. [mayoclinic.org]
In the 1800s, the life expectancy for a 10-year-old child with Type 1 diabetes was about one year. [vox.com]
Approximately 1550BC: An Egyptian papyrus mentions a rare disease that causes the patient to lose weight rapidly and urinate frequently. This is thought to be the first reference to diabetes. [diabetes.co.uk]
Hopefully that gets
Re: (Score:2)
"During my lifetime, some people even associated me with nazis for it."
And who can blame them for it? One could even say that you're proposing a "final solution" to the problem.
"I know you all see where I'm going with this."
Put them all on the train to the gas chambers? That's where I see you going with this. Might take a few years for you to openly admit it, but it's there.
Think of all the hereditary diseases that have yet to be discovered that could be solved merely by not allowing you to procreate. For
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe it is known what exactly is the etiology of type 1 diabetes. Possibly autoimmune, possibly triggered by virus. Genetics is not dispositive.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of carriers develop symptoms years before they reach the age to proceate.
Incorrect. A significant majority of carriers never develop symptoms.
For those parents at the highest risk, IVF and embryonic screening would be a far more reasonable and ethical way to maximize the risk of healthy children. There are many genes potentially involved, and their relative interactions and contributions are not yet precisely known. It's also possible that some of the T1D-correlated genes may have undiscovered population-level benefits that have allowed them to persist in the gene pool, as is th
What does it cost? (Score:2)
The US health system is a gigantic cluster fuck of fails.
Why isn't there a cure? (Score:2)
Before we go on, it's easy to yell Big Pharma - but they are just doing there jobs and, if they don't want to increase profits, they will get fired and somebody else will step in to fill their shoes.
How do we solve the problem of both Diabetes 1 and 2?
It's going to take governments with guts. The guts to form a Public Private Partnership to reall
Re: (Score:2)
Reads like a middle schooler's paper. Similar intellectual content. I particularly like the yelling of "Big Pharma" immediately followed by criticizing said yelling from others. Nice touch, demonstrating such an overwhelming lack of self-awareness.
If only politicians and scientists would admit that society's most deadly "scourges" exist merely because of lack of effort, we could be living in a utopia already. Perhaps you should run for office, your anti-free market criticisms of our government and healt
Re: Why isn't there a cure? (Score:2)
My point seems to be missed:
To get to cures, we have to side-step the free market. I'm not criticizing them. They see opportunity and do their jobs. The problem is that there is minimal, if any, opportunity in cures.
The only solution is to make up the profitability shortfall so as to improve citizens' lives.
I don't give a hoot about the political perspective on this. My focus is on getting to cures. End of story.