Skip to content

Type 1 diabetes — disease-modifying immunotherapy

TL;DR — Immune intervention can change T1D tempo but has not reliably produced permanent immune tolerance. Teplizumab is the clearest stage-2 result: one 14-day course delayed median stage-3 diagnosis from 24.4 to 48.4 months (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.78) in 76 relatives (Herold 2019, PMID 31180194; NCT01030861). In new-onset disease, rituximab, abatacept, low-dose ATG, teplizumab, and verapamil preserved C-peptide to varying degrees, but surrogate preservation does not automatically yield less insulin, better HbA1c, or durable remission (Pescovitz 2009, PMID 19940299; Orban 2011, PMID 21719096; Haller 2018, PMID 30012675; Ramos 2023, PMID 37861217). The frontier is biomarker-directed sequence and combination therapy with acceptable long-term immune risk.

Endpoint map

Disease point Typical primary endpoint Why it is hard
Stage 1 Time to dysglycemia or stage 3 Long follow-up; variable tempo
Stage 2 Time to stage 3 Delay may not equal prevention
New-onset stage 3 Stimulated C-peptide AUC Surrogate may not change daily outcomes
Established disease Severe events, insulin dose, HbA1c/TIR Little remaining β-cell mass

Mixed-meal stimulated C-peptide is the accepted β-cell-function endpoint because it is reproducible and biologically closer to endogenous secretion than insulin dose alone (Palmer 2004, PMID 14693724).

Intervention evidence

Agent/pathway Setting Quantitative result Interpretation
Teplizumab, anti-CD3 Stage-2 relatives Median diagnosis 48.4 vs 24.4 months; HR 0.41 (0.22–0.78) Proven delay, not proven permanent prevention
Teplizumab New-onset children/adolescents C-peptide difference 0.13 pmol/mL (0.09–0.17) at week 78 Preserved secretion; key clinical secondary endpoints not different
Rituximab, anti-CD20 New onset Higher 1-year C-peptide AUC; lower HbA1c and insulin dose B cells contribute; effect waned with reconstitution
Abatacept, CTLA4-Ig New onset C-peptide AUC 59% higher at 2 years; estimated 9.6-month delay in decline Costimulation blockade modifies tempo
Abatacept Stage 1 HR 0.702 (0.452–1.09), P=0.11 for dysglycemia/stage 3 Immune/metabolic effects without primary-endpoint success
Low-dose ATG New onset C-peptide AUC 0.646 vs 0.406 nmol/L at 1 year Signal with systemic immune toxicity considerations
Oral insulin At-risk relatives Primary stratum negative Antigen-specific prevention not established
Verapamil New-onset children 30% higher C-peptide at 52 weeks β-cell stress target, not classic immunosuppression

Sources: (Herold 2019, PMID 31180194; Ramos 2023, PMID 37861217; Pescovitz 2009, PMID 19940299; Orban 2011, PMID 21719096; Russell 2023, PMID 36920087; Haller 2018, PMID 30012675; TrialNet Oral Insulin Study Group 2017, PMID 29164254; Forlenza 2023, PMID 36826844).

Teplizumab as proof of disease modification

TN-10 randomized 76 high-risk relatives, 44 to teplizumab and 32 to placebo. Stage 3 developed in 43% versus 72% during the initial report; annualized diagnosis rates were 14.9% versus 35.9%, with rash and transient lymphopenia expected (Herold 2019, PMID 31180194; NCT01030861).

PROTECT randomized 328 recently diagnosed children/adolescents. Two 12-day courses increased stimulated C-peptide at week 78 by 0.13 pmol/mL (95% CI 0.09–0.17); 94.9% versus 79.2% retained peak C-peptide ≥0.2 pmol/mL, but insulin dose, HbA1c, TIR, and clinically important hypoglycemia did not significantly differ (Ramos 2023, PMID 37861217; NCT03875729).

Safety/domain Observed or operational issue
Infusion Consecutive daily intravenous dosing
Immune effects Transient lymphopenia; cytokine-release symptoms
Skin Rash is common
Infection screening Requires protocolized assessment and monitoring
Benefit uncertainty Individual delay cannot be predicted exactly
Access Screening, staging, infusion capacity, and payer coverage are prerequisites

Lessons from partial successes

Rituximab’s four-dose course partially preserved secretion, with B cells returning to 69% of baseline by 12 months; this links waning pharmacodynamic effect and disease recurrence without proving B cells are the sole driver (Pescovitz 2009, PMID 19940299; NCT00279305).

Abatacept produced a 59% higher adjusted C-peptide AUC at two years and an estimated 9.6-month delay in decline in new-onset T1D, yet stage-1 abatacept did not significantly delay its composite primary endpoint (Orban 2011, PMID 21719096; Russell 2023, PMID 36920087; NCT00505375; NCT01773707).

Low-dose ATG alone outperformed placebo for one-year C-peptide, whereas adding GCSF did not meet the prespecified threshold, a warning that mechanistic combinations can dilute rather than add efficacy (Haller 2018, PMID 30012675; NCT02215200).

Oral insulin failed in the 389-participant primary stratum, although a secondary subgroup signal generated hypotheses. Subgroup findings after a negative primary endpoint require prospective confirmation (TrialNet Oral Insulin Study Group 2017, PMID 29164254).

Why trials disagree

  • Stage, age, baseline C-peptide, autoantibody pattern, and rate of decline differ.
  • C-peptide assays and mixed-meal timing can alter sensitivity.
  • A transient pharmacodynamic effect may shift curves without inducing tolerance.
  • Trial enrollment enriches relatives and selected ancestries.
  • Background insulin technology changes HbA1c and hypoglycemia independently.
  • Multiple comparisons and responder analyses can overstate subgroup signals.
  • Safety tolerance differs when treating asymptomatic stage 1 versus symptomatic stage 3.

Combination strategies

The biological rationale is to pair complementary functions: suppress active autoreactivity, restore regulation, reduce β-cell stress, and provide antigen-specific tolerance. The clinical-trial registry includes rituximab followed by abatacept in new-onset T1D (NCT03929601), precision ATG with or without verapamil (NCT06455319), and a planned platform comparison of teplizumab with ATG in stage 2 (NCT07216391). Registry status is not evidence of efficacy.

Combination goal Example Principal risk
Sequential depletion + costimulation blockade Rituximab → abatacept Compound infection/vaccine effects
Immune modulation + β-cell protection ATG + verapamil Attribution and additive adverse effects
Repeat anti-CD3 Additional teplizumab courses Cumulative toxicity; uncertain marginal benefit
Immune therapy + antigen tolerance Depletion/modulation then insulin antigen Timing and responder selection

Regulatory and evidentiary boundary

An approved delay therapy changes clinical practice without answering lifetime benefit. Required post-approval evidence includes duration distribution, repeat-course effects, real-world safety, quality of life, access by ancestry and income, and whether delayed diagnosis reduces cumulative complications.

Quantitative evidence matrix

Intervention/stage Design β-cell or progression result Clinical/safety boundary
Teplizumab, stage 2 76-person RCT HR 0.41 (95% CI 0.22–0.78); median 48.4 vs 24.4 months Rash and transient lymphopenia; relative-enriched cohort
Oral insulin, stage 1 389-person primary stratum HR 0.87; P=0.21 Negative primary endpoint; positive 55-person secondary stratum
Abatacept, stage 1 212-person RCT HR 0.702 (95% CI 0.452–1.09) Immune/metabolic effects without primary progression benefit
Low-dose ATG, new onset 89-person three-arm RCT One-year AUC C-peptide 0.646 vs 0.406 nmol/L GCSF did not enhance preservation
Verapamil, new onset 88-person pediatric RCT Adjusted AUC difference 0.14 pmol/mL (0.01–0.27) β-cell-directed, not tolerance-inducing
Tight AID control, new onset 113-person pediatric RCT C-peptide difference −0.01 (−0.11 to 0.10) TIR +16 points without preservation

Oral insulin illustrates subgroup risk. The primary stratum had 58/203 versus 62/186 diagnoses and no significant delay; a 55-person secondary stratum had HR 0.45 and P=0.006, but was not the primary confirmatory population (Krischer 2017, PMID 29164254). A subgroup signal should generate a prospectively stratified trial, not reverse a negative primary conclusion.

Low-dose ATG and the failed add-on

At one year, low-dose ATG produced mean mixed-meal AUC C-peptide 0.646 versus 0.406 nmol/L with placebo (P=0.0003), while ATG+GCSF was 0.528 and missed the prespecified one-sided threshold (P=0.031). Both active groups lowered HbA1c, but GCSF added no C-peptide benefit (Haller 2018, PMID 30012675).

At two years, ATG alone retained a strong C-peptide difference (P=0.00005), whereas ATG+GCSF again missed its statistical criterion (P=0.032); ATG increased regulatory-to-conventional CD4 ratios and PD-1+CD4 cells (Haller 2019, PMID 30967424). This is evidence of durable partial preservation, not immune tolerance or insulin independence.

A 2025 six-person open-label pilot combined a deliberately subtherapeutic allogeneic-islet dose with short-course ATG, mTOR inhibition, and GCSF as an “immune education” strategy. Median stimulated C-peptide AUC was 91–100% of baseline at 12 months but 44–56% at five years; two participants retained stable secretion. The absence of a control group and the waning group trajectory mean this does not establish durable tolerance (Piemonti 2025, PMID 41438972).

B-cell depletion reveals network compensation

Rituximab depleted B cells and slowed first-year C-peptide loss, but autoantibody effects were antigen-specific: 40% (19/48) of IAA-positive treated participants became IAA-negative versus 0/29 placebo, while GADA, IA-2A, and ZnT8A changed less (Yu 2011, PMID 21831969). Autoantibody suppression is therefore not a uniform pharmacodynamic surrogate.

Systems analysis found that transiently elevated heterogeneous T-cell populations after rituximab correlated with weaker pharmacodynamic activity, more islet-antigen proliferation, and faster C-peptide loss (Linsley 2019, PMID 29925930). The suggested rituximab-plus-T-cell strategy is mechanistic rationale, not proven combination efficacy.

Preserved C-peptide versus patient-experienced benefit

In T1DAL, higher four-hour C-peptide AUC predicted fewer subsequent major hypoglycemic events and correlated with lower HbA1c and glucose variability, regardless of alefacept assignment. The post hoc analysis included 49 participants and found no treatment-group interaction (Pinckney 2016, PMID 27209482). This supports biological value of secretion while falling short of validating C-peptide as a universal surrogate.

Across 19 immunotherapy trials (1,852 participants), a 2025 meta-analysis estimated modest C-peptide preservation (SMD 0.221, 95% CI 0.069–0.373) without HbA1c improvement (SMD 0.033, −0.070 to 0.136). Effects attenuated with time, and leukocyte-clearance approaches had more serious events than T-regulatory enhancement approaches (Biswas 2025, PMID 41267047). Heterogeneous agents and endpoint timing limit pooled causal interpretation.

Long-duration natural-history data give the surrogate a clinical anchor: after mean 35 years, peak C-peptide >0.03 nmol/L associated with substantially less severe hypoglycemia, but not fewer advanced microvascular complications (Gubitosi-Klug 2021, PMID 33529168).

Responder biomarkers: promising and hazardous

Seven-year AbATE follow-up found less C-peptide loss and persistent PD-1-positive central-memory/anergic CD8 changes among participants classified as one-year teplizumab responders, but no lower HbA1c or insulin use (Perdigoto 2019, PMID 30569273). Because response was defined after treatment, this cannot select patients prospectively.

Routine clinical measures may support adaptive trials. A week-12 Beta2 score predicted one-year response across baricitinib and validation datasets from rituximab, abatacept, and ATG, with AUC 0.864 and 0.765; a 6.2% decline predicted HbA1c −0.6% and insulin −0.26 units/kg/day (So 2025, PMID 40424079). External prospective validation remains necessary.

Stage-1 abatacept reanalysis identified high baseline secretors with HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.25–0.84) and 15.8 (4.85–26.68) progression-free months gained; treatment interaction HR was 2.92 (1.23–6.96) (Galderisi 2026, PMID 41237315). This cannot override the parent negative primary endpoint without confirmation.

Trial design implications

Design choice Advantage Failure risk
Factorial immune + β-cell protection Tests interaction efficiently Toxicity and underpowered interaction
Sequential depletion/modulation Respects immune dynamics Order and interval multiply arms
Response-adaptive platform Moves allocation toward signal Temporal drift and changing background technology
Enrichment by secretion/antibody Raises event and response rates Excludes slower endotypes and reduces transportability
Maintenance/re-dosing Tests fading effects Cumulative infection, malignancy, and burden

Future trials need prespecified estimands for delay, durable stage-free survival, off-treatment persistence, severe events, patient burden, and cumulative toxicity. Enhanced designs and β-cell-death/imaging endpoints were proposed precisely because single-agent trials repeatedly produced transient C-peptide signals without restored tolerance (Ehlers 2016, PMID 27068279; Bone 2017, PMID 28534310).

β-cell protection is complementary, not interchangeable

Near-normal AID control increased TIR by 16 points but produced no C-peptide difference at 52 weeks (McVean 2023, PMID 36826834). Verapamil produced a 30% relative C-peptide advantage in the paired factorial trial. Albiglutide, by contrast, produced no appreciable 52-week preservation in a small phase-2 trial (Pozzilli 2020, PMID 32219329). “β-cell support” is a mechanistic category, not a class effect.

Open questions

  • Can any regimen create a treatment-free plateau rather than a temporary right-shift in diagnosis? (Herold 2019, PMID 31180194)
  • Which immune and metabolic biomarkers identify responders before exposure? (Russell 2023, PMID 36920087)
  • Does C-peptide preservation translate into fewer severe events or complications over decades? (Ramos 2023, PMID 37861217)
  • What sequence maximizes efficacy while avoiding cumulative immunosuppression? (Pescovitz 2009, PMID 19940299; Orban 2011, PMID 21719096)
  • Can β-cell stress therapy complement immune therapy without masking progression? (Forlenza 2023, PMID 36826844)

References

  1. Palmer JP, et al. C-peptide is the appropriate outcome measure for type 1 diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes. 2004;53:250-264. PMID 14693724
  2. Pescovitz MD, et al. Rituximab, B-lymphocyte depletion, and preservation of beta-cell function. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2143-2152. PMID 19940299
  3. Orban T, et al. Co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in recent-onset type 1 diabetes. Lancet. 2011;378:412-419. PMID 21719096
  4. TrialNet Oral Insulin Study Group. Effect of Oral Insulin on Prevention of Diabetes in Relatives. JAMA. 2017;318:1891-1902. PMID 29164254
  5. Haller MJ, et al. Low-Dose ATG Preserves β-Cell Function and Improves HbA1c. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1917-1925. PMID 30012675
  6. Herold KC, et al. An Anti-CD3 Antibody, Teplizumab, in Relatives at Risk. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:603-613. PMID 31180194
  7. Russell WE, et al. Abatacept for Delay of Type 1 Diabetes Progression in Stage 1. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1005-1013. PMID 36920087
  8. Ramos EL, et al. Teplizumab and β-Cell Function in Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:2151-2161. PMID 37861217
  9. Forlenza GP, et al. Effect of Verapamil on Pancreatic Beta Cell Function. JAMA. 2023;329:990-999. PMID 36826844
  10. Haller MJ, et al. Low-Dose ATG: Two-Year Clinical Trial Data. Diabetes. 2019;68:1267-1276. PMID 30967424
  11. Yu L, et al. Rituximab selectively suppresses specific islet antibodies. Diabetes. 2011;60:2560-2565. PMID 21831969
  12. Linsley PS, et al. Elevated T cell levels predict poor response following rituximab. Genes Immun. 2019;20:293-307. PMID 29925930
  13. Pinckney A, et al. Hypoglycemia, variability, and C-Peptide after alefacept in T1DAL. Clin Ther. 2016;38:1327-1339. PMID 27209482
  14. Biswas S, et al. Immunomodulatory interventions in type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Endocr Disord. 2025;25:270. PMID 41267047
  15. Gubitosi-Klug RA, et al. Residual β cell function in long-term type 1 diabetes and hypoglycemia. J Clin Invest. 2021;131. PMID 33529168
  16. Perdigoto AL, et al. Teplizumab follow-up after 7 years from diagnosis. Diabetologia. 2019;62:655-664. PMID 30569273
  17. So M, et al. β-Cell Function Derived From Routine Measures Predicts Immunotherapy Response. Diabetes Care. 2025;48:1370-1376. PMID 40424079
  18. Galderisi A, et al. Baseline Insulin Secretion Determines Response to Abatacept in Stage 1. Diabetes. 2026;75:229-240. PMID 41237315
  19. Ehlers MR. Strategies for clinical trials in type 1 diabetes. J Autoimmun. 2016;71:88-96. PMID 27068279
  20. Bone RN, Evans-Molina C. Combination Immunotherapy for Type 1 Diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2017;17:50. PMID 28534310
  21. McVean J, et al. Tight Glycemic Control and Pancreatic Beta Cell Function. JAMA. 2023;329:980-989. PMID 36826834
  22. Pozzilli P, et al. Albiglutide Versus Placebo in Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105. PMID 32219329
  23. Mirmira RG, et al. Biomarkers of β-Cell Stress and Death in Type 1 Diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2016;16:95. PMID 27541297
  24. Galderisi A, et al. Trajectory of beta cell function and insulin clearance in stage 2 type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2025;68:646-661. PMID 39560746
  25. Lin A, et al. Low-Dose ATG/GCSF in Established Type 1 Diabetes: Five-Year Follow-up. Diabetes. 2021;70:1123-1129. PMID 33632742
  26. Piemonti L, et al. Induction of immune education in type 1 diabetes through controlled allogeneic islet rejection at onset: a monocentric open-label pilot study. EClinicalMedicine. 2025;90:103685. PMID 41438972