Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35585600›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

INNODIA Master Protocol for the evaluation of investigational medicinal products in children, adolescents and adults with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes.

David B Dunger, Sylvaine F A Bruggraber, Adrian P Mander, M Loredana Marcovecchio, Timothy Tree, Piotr Jaroslaw Chmura, Mikael Knip, Anke M Schulte, Chantal Mathieu, INNODIA consortium

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

David B DungerDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sylvaine F A BruggraberDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Adrian P ManderCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
M Loredana MarcovecchioDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. mlm45@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4415-316X
Timothy TreeCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Piotr Jaroslaw ChmuraNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mikael KnipPediatric Research Centre, Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Anke M SchulteBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Chantal MathieuDepartment of Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
INNODIA consortium
KU Leuven · BEUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DKBayer (Germany) · DEUniversity of Helsinki · FIKing's College London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe INNODIA consortium has established a pan-European infrastructure using validated centres to prospectively evaluate clinical data from individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes combined with centralised collection of clinical samples to determine rates of decline in beta-cell function and identify novel biomarkers, which could be used for future stratification of phase 2 clinical trials.

methodsIn this context, we have developed a Master Protocol, based on the "backbone" of the INNODIA natural history study, which we believe could improve the delivery of phase 2 studies exploring the use of single or combinations of Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs), designed to prevent or reverse declines in beta-cell function in individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Although many IMPs have demonstrated potential efficacy in phase 2 studies, few subsequent phase 3 studies have confirmed these benefits. Currently, phase 2 drug development for this indication is limited by poor evaluation of drug dosage and lack of mechanistic data to understand variable responses to the IMPs. Identification of biomarkers which might permit more robust stratification of participants at baseline has been slow. DISCUSSION: The Master Protocol provides (1) standardised assessment of efficacy and safety, (2) comparable collection of mechanistic data, (3) the opportunity to include adaptive designs and the use of shared control groups in the evaluation of combination therapies, and (4) benefits of greater understanding of endpoint variation to ensure more robust sample size calculations and future baseline stratification using existing and novel biomarkers.

Indexed as

COVID-19Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1AdolescentAdultBiomarkersChildHumansSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeBiomarkersBeta-cell functionC-peptideMaster protocolPhase 2PreventionTrialsType 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID35585600
PMCPMC9116021
OpenAlexW4280498771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.