Ingap

[nab486]

Anyone have any thoughts on this article? Sounds intresting to me. I had read some about it before, but this had more details.


DIABETES DRUG HELPS BODY MAKE INSULIN CELLS
Aaron Derfel, CanWest News Service
MONTREAL, Oct. 16, 2003 -- A Montreal physician who discovered a protein that could reverse the effects of diabetes is optimistic about the drug after clinical trials in the United States showed it is safe and well tolerated.

The next step is to test higher doses of the Islet Neogenesis Gene Associate Protein therapy on diabetics and to determine whether it's effective. Proctor and Gamble Pharmaceuticals is recruiting 200 people in the U.S. with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes for a clinical trial.

"I'm very positive," said Lawrence Rosenberg, who continues to experiment with the drug on animals at Montreal General Hospital.

"The fact it appears to be safe is exciting, and the work we're doing in animals is very positive in terms of generating new insulin tissue."

The experimental drug is a form of biological therapy, stimulating the body to create new insulin-producing cells, or islets.

Diabetes occurs when the pancreas fails to release enough of the hormone insulin to break down sugar in the blood.

An excess of blood sugar can cause cardiac problems, kidney failure and blindness and require amputations. To date, the most common treatment has been injections of synthetic insulin. There are also glucose sensitizers that make better use of insulin, and chemicals that squeeze out what little insulin exists in diabetics.

Rosenberg's INGAP therapy, however, would address the root causes of diabetes -- an insufficiency of islets.

In the early 1980s, Rosenberg stumbled upon a human protein that triggers the creation of islets. Aaron Vinik of the Eastern Virginia Medical School then found a way to refine the protein.
The researchers first tested a cruder synthetic version of INGAP on hamsters with diabetes, and cured 60 per cent of the animals. Rosenberg tested a purer form of INGAP last year on laboratory mice and achieved a 100-per-cent cure rate.

"In an animal model that's similar to juvenile (Type 1) diabetes, we're able to show a beneficial effect -- prolonging survival and decreasing blood sugar," Rosenberg said of his latest experiments.

On GMP's website, the company has announced that patients will be administered single daily doses of INGAP for up to 90 days. Rosenberg said that in animal experiments, he has found the injections can be stopped after a certain period of time. That suggests the animals regained the ability to regulate insulin naturally in their bodies.

If all goes well, INGAP could be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration within five years, Rosenberg said. Health Canada would probably approve it a year later.

In human trials, Rosenberg said, he expects INGAP to be more effective for Type II diabetics, although it could work for Type I as well.

In Type 1 diabetics, their immune systems mistakenly recognize the islets as foreign and destroy them. Type 2 diabetes mainly affects people older than 45, usually as a result of obesity. Disturbingly, however, a growing number of overweight adolescents are developing Type 2 diabetes. In both cases, their islets malfunction -- partly because they are damaged by an excess of fat in the bloodstream.

Diabetics must be constantly aware of the amount of sugar in their blood. They must be careful not to administer too much insulin for fear of losing consciousness.

The standard therapies are far from a cure.

[lgvincent]

It would be nice if it worked.

[HeatherP]

How come it's always cures for T2's???? Can't we T1's ever get in on anything?

[lgvincent]

Yes, it does seem like every new development is for the type 2 diabetes and it's rare that there is anything new for the type 1 diabetes. Maybe they all just want to get rid of us.

[Shalyndria]

Hey, the article doesn't say it won't work for us Type 1's. Something's better than nothing.

[nab486]

Actually, I thought it was weird that it said that about being better for type two's. Everything I had read prior to this particular article about this said it was better for type 1's because it adresses the islet problem and not the insulin resistance problem.:confused: who knows? Hopefully it will work.

Jamie

[WiseWords]

Here is another article that I think has better info on INGAP (http://www.dif.org/News_Articles/NEWingap.shtml)
It not only represents a possible cure for diabetes,
but it is equally applicable to Type 1 or Type 2.
And, it has already worked,
on mice and hamsters.
They are now starting Phase II studies in humans.
I will post the link for sign-up info if I come across it.
It is at selected centers in some parts of the US.

The most notable thing about this is that
although it is the closest we have come to a
bonafide cure for diabetes, without the
immune/rejection problems associated with transplants,
it is not something that the big drug companies
and manufacturers of diabetes supplies want to
have happen !

Lilly makes over a billion dollars per year from the
sale of Humulin insulin alone, and
several billion more from the sale of its other
diabetic supplies and oral medicines.
Think that they want to lose that?

Lilly actually got in on the INGAP research in 1997,
and then backed out two years later, stating
that it was not in their future interests,
primarily to their stockholders.

Now Protor & Gamble has put themselves in it
with a measly $6 million for research.
Do you know how much Squibb has paid for
the rights to continue research on Basulin,
a new insulin still in the development stages,
but which Squibb hopes to make a pile of money
from? $20 million up front, and an additional
$145 million, for a total of $165 million !

Meanwhile, the soap & powder company has
invested only $6 million for a potential cure.
(They do have a pharmaceutical division.)

Big Biz does not want a cure for diabetes,
even though it may be out there.:mad:

[Harold]

Great, but I have questiona. Like where do these extra cells come from? Do they come frome stemcells we have already in our bodies, like the ones used to make new red blood cells. For the most part we are born with all of the cells we will ever have. They replace themselves about fifty times before dying off and when you were born they already did it about twenty five times. This will need some long term research.

[Alaska]

In tests on animals, researchers found that INJECTED peptide travels to the pancreas, where it apparently "wakes up" inactive adult stem cells. Once stimulated, the formerly sleepy cells give birth to beta cells, which are responsible for manufacturing insulin. The peptide also seems to trigger the creation of companion cells in the pancreas, which begin making glucagon and other hormones needed to regulate blood sugar.

[mg_2204]

Hello,

I read somewhere Type I will be harder to cure because the body is turning against itself and the mechanisms and triggers at the source of this are still very much a mystery. We still need to learn so much about the human body. My guess is that if researchers focus on understanding and finding a cure for T1, diabetes --all types-- would be a thing of the past. And good riddance too! I am surprised the article says this will cure T2... I've always thought research was primarily done to cure T1. If we cure T1, would be walk in the park to cure T2 then, right? What is being done for T1 then?!?? Anyone knows? Sometimes I get the feeling research is done to help people suffering from diabetes but not so much in finding a CURE. If we compare to let's say cancer research... are the same efforts being done to *c*u*r*e* diabetes???


Bye!

Marie

[DeusXM]

Here's my little cynical bit....

Probably the reason why they say this will be more sucessful for T2 is because people with T2 still actually produce insulin. The beta cells are still present, so theoretically they can clone. Us poor sods with T1 don't have these cells anymore.

I'm by no means a biologist, but I'd guess that the scientists aren't too comfortable growing something from nothing.

Plus (and this is the REALLY cynical bit), there's far more people with T2, so naturally there's far more money for whoever cures it, than someone who does T1.

As for the hope that diabetes will be a thing of the past, i doubt it, since T1 is genetic and we don't know which genes are responsible yet, and T2 is predominantly lifestyle based anyway so until we eliminate both those factors, the big D will still be around, but hopefully should be a bit easier to shift in future.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a cure, but I can't help but think that biologically I'm a bit different from a mouse.

[mg_2204]

Hello Deus...

They have found the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis so I don't see why they couldn't find those responsible for diabetes.

Insn't it just awful it all comes down to how much money they will make out of it...?!?!???

[DeusXM]

Not saying they won't find them, it's just that it's a rather time consuming effort. Also CF is an obvious cell mutation so they just need to find the genes for those cells. No-one's really sure what causes the body to destroy the Beta cells yet, though there are theories. But before we find the genes responsible, we need to find the process that causes T1 first.

[Jon]

Where do they find all those diabetic hamsters? From what I understand, they have to kill the beta cells in the hamsters to make them diabetic. So regrowing them shouldn't be too hard. In a human being however, the body is killing the beta cells (type 1). From what I understand, the pancreas can regrow the cells, but the body keeps killing them off. So even if they find a drug to grow new cells, they still have to stop the body from destroying them.

I have never heard that type 2's need more beta cells. I thought that was just a problem with the body resisting the insulin that is already there. I don't see where they are going with this study.

[statdeac]

Originally posted by Jon

I have never heard that type 2's need more beta cells. I thought that was just a problem with the body resisting the insulin that is already there. I don't see where they are going with this study. Jon, I think in type 2 that the beta cells go into hyper mode when they think that they aren't producing enough insulin for the body. Eventually, they just wear out as opposed to the body attacking them.

[WiseWords]

Originally posted by DeusXM
As for the hope that diabetes will be a thing of the past, i doubt it, since T1 is genetic and we don't know which genes are responsible yet,...

Excuse me! Don't you people read the other posts?
To quote from the INGAP link that I posted above:

INGAP:

INGAP made headline news two years ago as a possible cure for diabetes. INGAP is the gene discovered by the research team at the Strelitz Diabetes Institutes, Eastern Virginia Medical School under the director of Aaron I. Vinik, MD, PhD, Director of Research.

...How does the discovery of this gene fit in
with the cure for diabetes?
...Using a new technique, they were able to
search for genes that might be uniquely related
to the development of islet cells.
Their search is now history! They successfully identified the gene
now known as "INGAP" and showed that they were able to cure diabetes
in some animals by inducing immature cells in the destroyed pancreas
of diabetic animals to make insulin.


The gene has already been found !
Phase 1 trials in humans are completed !!
They are now getting ready to start Phase II trials in humans.

Originally posted by DeusXM
and T2 is predominantly lifestyle based anyway so until we eliminate both those factors, the big D will still be around, but hopefully should be a bit easier to shift in future.

Type 2 can be brought on by being overweight,
among other things, but the slowed down production
of insulin is related to defective Islands of Langerhans,
the same as in a Type 1 diabetic. There may also be
additional areas regarding insulin resistance, or
abnormal glucose control, but the slowed down pancreas
is because it is not working properly. Sometimes, it
cuts out all together, and then, the Type 2 diabetic has
symptoms similar to a Type 1, without any insulin production.

Originally posted by DeusXM Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a cure, but I can't help but think that biologically I'm a bit different from a mouse. .

Of course. That is why they are now doing
human trials with INGAP.
However, the reason that they use mice,
is because there are many similar characteristics
to the way tested drugs preform in humans.
INGAP has already worked in mice and hamsters.

The shame of it all is that the suppliers of
diabetes products, Lilly being the largest,
would prefer to continue selling those products
because there is more money to be made in the
longterm from those sales than from a cure.
A cure would abolish all of their customers and
potential customers. It is not in their best
business interests, and they have as much as said so !

We need to get legislation passed to put
more funding into this research instead of
only the $6 million from Proter & Gamble.

[Andrea]

Jon,

I think you are right about the fact that it is the autoimmune problem in type 1 diabetes that makes this less likely to work in someone with type 1. They islet cells may grow, but then they might be killed off again, just as the original ones were.

Type 2 is a progressive disease. It usually starts with insulin resistance, but because the body spends years or decades trying to overcome this resistance to insulin, the islet cells do wear out. It is like their aging process goes faster than the rest of the body. That is why most people with type 2 will eventually end up on insulin one day because their body just simply can't manufacture enough anymore.


Marie,

Curing type 1 and type 2 diabetes are actually worlds appart. They are two very different diseases with different origins/causes and differen pathologies. The only reason that they are both called diabetes is that we only figured out there were different kinds of diabetes in the last 60 years or so, but the name diabetes has been around for over 2000 years (diabetes mellitus = lots of sweet urine). Of course, the end result in both cases is elevated blood glucose levels and the consequences of that are the same whatever the reason for the high blood sugar.

DeusXM,

There is actually a much greater genetic factor in type 2 diabetes than in type 1. If you have a first degree relative (mother, father, brother, sister) with type 2, you have about a 40% chance of also developping it, but if you have a first degree relative with type 1, you only have about a 5% chance of getting type 1. That said, the actual genes involved and how they work are not entirely worked out, as you poined out.

Andrea

[WiseWords]

For those who may be interested in signing up
for the Phase II Trials of INGAP, which are
taking place at selected centers across the US,
here is the information:


---> Type 1 Diabetics (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00071409?order=1)

---> Type 2 Diabetics (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00071422?order=2)

[DeusXM]

'Excuse me! Don't you people read the other posts?
To quote from the INGAP link that I posted above'

So in other words, it wasn't actually in your post then.

They successfully identified the gene now known as "INGAP" and showed that they were able to cure diabetes in some animals by inducing immature cells in the destroyed pancreas of diabetic animals to make insulin.

In some animals.

Plus, this is the gene that INDUCES cells to produce insulin. My point was that we don't know what genes are responsible for DESTROYING the original beta cells.

Excuse me! Don't you people read the other posts?

Type 2 can be brought on by being overweight,
among other things

So you concede it's lifestyle based then?

I'm not arguing that the symptoms are different, I'm saying the causes are. T1 - no insulin produced because the cells are destroyed following a genetic autoimmune reaction. T2 - Insulin produced, but not enough needed for the body, or the body is unable to use it efficiently, either through the effects of lifestyle, and possibly as a result of genetics. End result is diabetes, but surely if the causes are different, so's the cure? What's to stop the immune systems of people with Type 1 destroying the new insulin cells?

I get the impression you're canvassing for cash for INGAP rather than trying to contribute here.

You're not doing a very good job by insulting people.

[Jon]

I don't see anybody asking for any cash. It looks like they just need some volunteers. My son is too young to be a part of it, but I will tell all of the diabetic adults I know about it, and maybe some of them would be interested.

[WiseWords]

I do not work for INGAP, which is now under
control from the soap & cosmetics company
called Procter & Gamble.
I also do not collect money for INGAP.

I do believe that INGAP is the closest thing
to a genuine cure for diabetes for Type 1 or Type 2
diabetics that anyone has come up with to date.
Instead of replacing or substituting other items
for the presently unusable or ineffective
insulin producing cells, the INGAP technology
restores the patients existing cells.

Because this is detrimental to Big Biz for diabetes,
it has gotten far less money than other areas,
including research into other insulin to sell to the
growing diabetic population.

The links I provided for separate Phase II trials,
one for Type 1 and one for Type 2,
are there for those who might want to get in
on a cure. It is notable that in other trials,
such as new oral medicines for Type 2's, there
were larger numbers being tested,
most likely because there was more money.

India currently has the world's largest population of diabetics, with an estimated 30 million people suffering from the disease. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), India will have about 57 million people with diabetes in India by 2025. That is about the size of the population of Britain or France.

Globally, WHO has estimated that by 2025,
the number of people with diabetes worldwide
will more than double from 140 million to 300 million.

That is a lot of money from the sale of insulin,
oral meds, and all the needed supplies.
It certainly makes me wonder if that is why
so little money is being put into INGAP research?

[DeusXM]

Instead of replacing or substituting other items for the presently unusable or ineffective insulin producing cells, the INGAP technology restores the patients existing cells.

That's all well and good, but as I keep reiterating, in type 1 there are no longer any existing beta cells. Hence why we have type 1.

I do not work for INGAP, which is now under control from the soap & cosmetics company called Procter & Gamble. I also do not collect money for INGAP.

You're working for someone. Your posts don't read like everyone else's here, and every single post you've ever made has linked to another company's products or services. If you're genuinely concerned about people exploiting people with diabetes for profit, that's great, but I would suggest you reconsider your approach.

That is a lot of money from the sale of insulin, oral meds, and all the needed supplies. It certainly makes me wonder if that is why so little money is being put into INGAP research?

This is definitely the reason, there's absolutely no financial incentive for companies like Bayer to eliminate diabetes. This is why the majority of research into conditions like diabetes is carried out in Canada, the UK, and other countries where the health service is government funded. Pharmaceutical companies are also the reason why developing nations are not allowed to produce generic versions of anti-AIDS/HIV drugs, since it would dent the profits of such companies.

Join the fight, people. Privatised healthcare causes far more problems than it solves.

[WiseWords]

Originally posted by DeusXM
That's all well and good, but as I keep reiterating, in type 1 there are no longer any existing beta cells. Hence why we have type 1.

Apparently, that is not what Dr. Vinik, Research Director
of the Strelitz Diabetes Institutes at
Eastern Virginia Medical School is saying.
This is where the INGAP research was done.

According to him and other research doctors,
...we discovered INGAP (Islet Neogenesis Associated Protein).
Dr. Ronit Rafaeloff showed that the protein product was capable of stimulating islet neogenesis
and lower blood glucose levels.
...Then we asked if INGAP caused the formation of new islets. Low and behold, it did.
...The results were incredible. The injected material went straight to the pancreas and the ducts, and it didn’t go anywhere else...
– it has given us a lock that is present in this pancreatic cell. No matter where you put in the INGAP Peptide, the “key” will find the lock and hone in on it.
Subsequently, we found that once the Peptide got to the pancreas’ ductal cells, it stimulated them to make new islets. We then knew that the biological activity of INGAP was capable of stimulating new islets. We had the answer - INGAP Peptide goes where it is supposed to go and reverses diabetes like the whole INGAP protein.
...With all the animals that received INGAP Peptide, the diabetes was reversed.
...Stop giving INGAP Peptide, and the blood sugar stayed down.
...The Peptide had to have a biological effect to create new cells in the body that make insulin – new cells that the body recognized as its own.
...On December 5 {2001} the human trials began.


The link that I posted in the above thread
seems to be down.
They appear to be revising their site.
Don't know if that link will be back up,
but it was good because it was a short
summation that answered the questions you are
asking. They now have a more detailed webpage
that has a lot of reading.
This is the link--->INGAP As A Cure for Diabetes (http://www.dif.org/Diabetes_Institutes/research/presentation0702.cfm)

Originally posted by DeusXM
You're working for someone. Your posts don't read like everyone else's here, ...
I am not going to
apologize for being smart, if in fact, I am.
I gave some factual information on
what I think is a remarkable step forward
toward a cure for diabetes.

I also provided links for the Phase II trials
which are still accepting applications.
The downside is that there are not enough
participants planned for these trials.

I admit that I am cynical regarding the reasons
for that fact. Part of that cynicism may come from
age, but the rest comes from the issues that are
clearly out there.
If Procter & Gamble were testing a new soap
or cosmetic, I am pretty sure that they would
use more than thirty people per testing location.
Lilly, who withdrew from the research in 1999,
after gaining insider information for two years,
has given away thousands of bottles of Humalog
and its other insulins, and still is BTW, because
that is where their money is invested.
Sorry if I sound like I have an ax to grind. I do!

As for working for someone,
I wish I was, especially those involved with
this cutting edge research.
With a background in film & television production,
it would be great if I could produce a documentary
on the trials and tribulations and the human side
of this research. But I am not.
With Brittle Diabetes, compounded with
hypoglycemic unawareness, it is all I can do
to get by each day on a meager existence from SSI.
At least I have complete medical coverage with
Medicaid for doctor visits and supplies, albeit 150
test strips per month, which is about half what I need.
But I am not working for anybody.

Originally posted by DeusXM
...and every single post you've ever made has linked to another company's products or services. If you're genuinely concerned about people exploiting people with diabetes for profit, that's great, but I would suggest you reconsider your approach.
I think my approach
is perfect. Rather than just mouthing off,
I back up what I have to say with the
appropriate links.
This is the internet, and that is one of the
advantages of it.
Originally posted by DeusXM
This is definitely the reason, there's absolutely no financial incentive for companies like Bayer to eliminate diabetes. This is why the majority of research into conditions like diabetes is carried out in Canada, the UK, and other countries where the health service is government funded. Pharmaceutical companies are also the reason why developing nations are not allowed to produce generic versions of anti-AIDS/HIV drugs, since it would dent the profits of such companies.

Join the fight, people.
Privatised healthcare causes far more problems than it solves.

I agree with you on your last statement.
I am not sure where Bayer fits into all of this,
but I am very much in favor of making quality
medical care available to anyone who needs it.

When it comes to research and development,
their are varied opinions as to whether or not
the profit motive is an incentive for greater research,
but certainly, in this instance, it has had a negative effect.

I posted about this on the asd website and suggested
that the people write to their legislators in the US
to promote government funding for the
INGAP research, as they do not seem to be
getting it from anywhere else.
Many people seemed to feel that the
government would make matters worse.
Surprisingly, this research is only going on
in the US and Canada with the P & G private venture.
The rest of the world seems to be ignoring it.

I also wonder if there are other motives from
the US government? After all, there is a
multi-billion dollar industry that pays
income taxes from the sale of diabetic supplies,
and provides many jobs.
A cure for diabetes would greatly effect the economy.

I am not so sure that our best interests are
being considered. The future for diabetes business
by the year 2025 is expected to double worldwide
to 300 million people. That's a lot of dollars to lose
with a cure.

[DeusXM]

I am not going to apologize for being smart, if in fact, I am.

Not pulling you up for being smart, it's just a lot of your stuff appears to be a cut-and-paste job, but we'll leave it at that.

I mentioned Bayer because they manufacture blood test strips and meters, the biggest source of income for phamaceutical companies from diabetes.

And you're right that a cure for diabetes would affect the economy, but I'd say there'd be a trade-off. Firstly, the risk of serious complications would be seriously reduced, which means people would be able to work at an older age. Secondly, there'd be less days off because of illness/clinic etc. Finally, for where I live, it would save the NHS millions and ensure that taxpayers' money would still be spent on worthy causes.