C o m m e n t a r y9The search for effective immune interventions for type 1 diabetesType 1 diabetes (T1D) is considered to be an immune-mediated disease and thus potentially amenable to immune intervention (1). In animal models, a multitude of different immunologic approaches have been successful, including the use of single agents as well as a combination of agents selected for potential complementary effects (2). In patients with T1D, many immunologic strategies have been tested in phase II clinical trials; however, most of the results from these studies have been disappointing, with no single or combination treatment providing an unambiguous benefit in preserving β cell function. In a few studies, individuals have shown transient benefit (3-6), while others have been without any observed benefit (7-10). Still other immune interventions have ambiguous effects that do not meet their primary outcome measure, such as preservation of β cell function, but provide potential benefit based either on secondary outcome measures or mechanistic findings (11,12). Some phase III clinical trials have also been conducted, though none of these treatments have shown benefit. The lack of success in these clinical trials has resulted in many researchers in the field taking a step back in order to assess the challenges and the opportunities for immune intervention in T1D and rethink the approaches to be used. Interestingly, almost all of the clinical trials to date have enrolled subjects within the first 100 days after clinical diagnosis of T1D. It has been argued that the best responses are seen in patients who start immunotherapy as soon as possible after diagnosis of hyperglycemia; therefore, T1D ideally should be regarded as a "medical emergency," and immunologic treatment should be started within a few days of diagnosis (13).A number of studies in animal models suggest that more robust results may be obtained by combining immunemodulating agents that have expected complementary mechanisms (14). Only a few clinical studies to evaluate the use of combination therapy have been conducted, all of which failed to show benefit (15-17). One of the reasons that studies with combination therapy are lacking is that a demonstration that component therapies used together are safe is a requirement of regulating agencies. Moreover, for combination therapy, regulatory authorities ideally want each of the agents in the combined treatment to demonstrate individual efficacy. The few combination trials that have been allowed to go forward have used agents that have been used previously in combination in transplantation or some other setting.
A paradigm-shifting combinationIn this issue, a study by Haller et al. examines the effects of a combination of lowdose anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and pegylated granulocyte CSF (G-CSF) on β cell function in patients with T1D (18). This combination has previously shown beneficial effect in preclinical diabetes models (19). Although the study by Haller et al. is a very small study (only 25 subjects, random...