5 ms·

BCG vaccine can reverse Type 1 diabetes to almost undetectable levels: study

35 points by dankohn1 8y ago

msie 8y ago
The comments say this is not the case.
brgvk 8y ago
dfdsfdsf
brgvk 8y ago
Sample
- brgvk 8y ago
  hhkk
pella 8y ago
"Joint Statement from JDRF and the American Diabetes Association" https://www.jdrf.org/blog/2018/06/25/joint-statement-from-jdrf-and-the-american-diabetes-association/ https://www.jdrf.org/blog/2018/06/25/joint-statement-from-jd... "While this work has attracted attention, the study only followed a very small number of patients—nine people at the five-year time point, and three people at the eight-year time point—and must be interpreted with caution. Overall, the findings prompt thought-provoking questions but not definitive answers, and do not provide enough clinical evidence to support any recommended change in therapy at this time."
boulos 8y ago
The underlying paper is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-018-0062-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-018-0062-8 . The JRDF statement seems to suggest that only a subset of the trial mattered. Can someone more familiar with the area comment on the sample sizes? (I have no sense if n=9 is actually laughably small from a set of 52)
stmfreak 8y ago
The journalist reports on the effect had on the “blood glucose score” of around 6.5. This sounds like an A1C score which measures long term levels of glucose. It is nice that it went down a small amount, but inconsequential. What is not mentioned is whether or not the patients were able to quit taking insulin. I suspect not since there were placebo patients in the trial and not taking insulin is lethal for a Type I Diabetic. The headline was written as if this caused a remission of the disease and return to normalcy. But at best it sounds like patients had better luck managing their disease with the vaccine than without. Nothing to see here, sorry.
parrellel 8y ago
Well, this is a terrible and misleading article, but then, most of them are. Tuberculosis drug helps reduces A1C scores 10-20% for small n doesn't make a good headline I suppose.

35 points by dankohn1 8y ago

msie 8y ago

The comments say this is not the case.

brgvk 8y ago

dfdsfdsf

brgvk 8y ago

Sample

brgvk 8y ago
hhkk

pella 8y ago

"Joint Statement from JDRF and the American Diabetes Association" https://www.jdrf.org/blog/2018/06/25/joint-statement-from-jdrf-and-the-american-diabetes-association/ https://www.jdrf.org/blog/2018/06/25/joint-statement-from-jd... "While this work has attracted attention, the study only followed a very small number of patients—nine people at the five-year time point, and three people at the eight-year time point—and must be interpreted with caution. Overall, the findings prompt thought-provoking questions but not definitive answers, and do not provide enough clinical evidence to support any recommended change in therapy at this time."

boulos 8y ago

The underlying paper is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-018-0062-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-018-0062-8 . The JRDF statement seems to suggest that only a subset of the trial mattered. Can someone more familiar with the area comment on the sample sizes? (I have no sense if n=9 is actually laughably small from a set of 52)

stmfreak 8y ago

The journalist reports on the effect had on the “blood glucose score” of around 6.5. This sounds like an A1C score which measures long term levels of glucose. It is nice that it went down a small amount, but inconsequential. What is not mentioned is whether or not the patients were able to quit taking insulin. I suspect not since there were placebo patients in the trial and not taking insulin is lethal for a Type I Diabetic. The headline was written as if this caused a remission of the disease and return to normalcy. But at best it sounds like patients had better luck managing their disease with the vaccine than without. Nothing to see here, sorry.

parrellel 8y ago

Well, this is a terrible and misleading article, but then, most of them are. Tuberculosis drug helps reduces A1C scores 10-20% for small n doesn't make a good headline I suppose.