Faustman Lab Research: How Excited Should You Be?

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook86Share on Google+5Pin on Pinterest5


Last week, diabetes headlines were dominated by a new study from the Faustman Lab at Massachusetts General Hospital, published on Wednesday, August 8th on PLoS One, suggesting that a 90-year-old tuberculosis vaccine called BCG might hold promise for people living with type 1 diabetes. “Human Study Reignites Debate Over Controversial Diabetes ‘Cure,’” wrote Reuters.[1] “Diabetes May Be Reversed By Long-Used Vaccine for TB,” proclaimed Bloomberg news.[2]


It sounds intriguing. But as people with type 1 diabetes (and their families) know, it’s best not to trust a headline – according to the news, type 1 has been “cured” numerous times since I was diagnosed in 2001. So I decided to go straight to the study’s author — Denise Faustman, M.D., Ph.D., controversial researcher and director of the Faustman Lab – to learn more about the study from the person who designed it. How did it work? What did she find? And how excited should we actually be?


First, the study itself had a more subdued title than the headlines devoted to it: “Proof-of-Concept, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Bacillus-Calmette-Guerin for Treatment of Long-Term Type 1 Diabetes.”[3] It was inspired by trials in non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice models suggesting that a 90-something-year-old tuberculosis vaccine called Bacillus-Calmette-Guerin (BCG for short) might contribute to the elimination of insulin-killing immune cells in NOD mice. Faustman and her team hoped this might also be true for humans with type 1 diabetes.


Killing these cells would be significant because, in the past decade or so, researchers have begun to believe that the human body is actually able to regenerate insulin-producing beta cells. (Previously, researchers believed that once you killed off your beta cells, they were totally gone – kind of how they used to think that you couldn’t grow new brain neurons.) One current theory is that if we could stop the immune system’s attack on beta cells, the body would be able to grow new ones – thereby curing (or at least greatly improving the lives of) people with type 1 diabetes.


Interestingly, in both mice and humans, BCG itself doesn’t appear to be doing anything to the white blood cells – known as insulin-autoreactive T cells — that are responsible for destroying insulin-producing cells. Instead, BCG increases the body’s production of a different type of molecule called Tumor Necrosis Factor – TNF for short. It’s TNF, not BCG, that appears to kill the insulin-autoreactive T cells.


Dr. Denise FaustmanFaustman had originally hoped to administer TNF directly, but TNF is not approved as a drug; the approval process would have taken years, and no drug companies were interested in spending millions of dollars developing an experimental treatment that, if successful, would reduce the market for their other diabetes products. Instead, Faustman and her colleagues searched for an approved drug with a great safety profile that increased levels of TNF. BCG fit the bill.


It’s worth noting that this is not the first time BCG has been studied – several previous trials have failed[4] — and several members of the diabetes research community that I spoke with were extremely skeptical about BCG in general, as well as this particular trial. (Faustman believes previous trials failed because of a lack of knowledge about mechanism and incorrect dosing.)


With that said, here’s how this most recent trial worked: the study was a proof-of-concept trial, designed to set the stage for what Faustman hopes will be a much larger intervention. The clinical group, therefore, was really small: she got FDA approval to treat three people with BCG, and used three more as double-blind, randomized controls (all six had had type 1 for an average of just over 15 years). She also included a larger “reference” population of people with and without type 1 diabetes, which acted as non-blinded, non-placebo-treated controls. The treated group got two doses of BCG, similar to the dose used for tuberculosis vaccination: one at the trial’s start, and one four weeks later. Researchers drew participants’ blood once a week for twenty weeks; in total, they studied more than 1,073 blood samples.


They were looking for four distinct biomarkers: the insulin-autoreactive T cells, regulatory T cells (a type of T cell that’s thought to act sort of like a police force, keeping more destructive T cells in check), an autoantibody called glutamic acid carboxylase (GAD – its existence is often used in early stages of the disease to confirm that you have type 1 or LADA rather than type 2), and C-peptide, a protein molecule, produced along with insulin, that indicates how much insulin your body has produced. (It’s impossible to measure insulin itself, both because you use it up quickly after you make it, and because there’s no way to distinguish between the artificial insulin you take and the insulin your body actually makes. C-peptide is a better marker on both counts:  artificial insulin doesn’t have C-peptide, and C-peptide hangs around in your blood stream even after the insulin has been used up.)


Faustman’s results indicated that BCG was doing something. First, even though none of the six clinical participants had significant levels of insulin-autoreactive T cells at the study’s start, Faustman’s team noticed significant numbers of dead insulin-autoreactive T cells in circulation after each dose of the vaccine. This confused me when I read it – where were the autoreactive T cells coming from if they weren’t there at the beginning of the study? And, uh, don’t you not want new autoreactive T cells? Faustman explained that, first of all, she doesn’t think the vaccine is making any new ones. Rather, she believes that the BCG-induced TNF is killing off old stores of insulin-autoreactive cells — while no one yet knows exactly where they’re located, there appear to be reservoirs of these insulin-autoreactive T cells in the bodies of type 1 diabetics, which are ready to pounce upon any new insulin-producing cell that dares show its face. Faustman believes that TNF is attacking the reservoirs of these cells and killing off part of their population; their dead carcasses then show up in circulation. Since she observed an increase the number of these dead cells after both doses of the vaccine, she also believes that the dose they used in the study is probably too low.


 As for the results of the other biomarkers, GAD was confusing – the levels in one treated participant went up, another’s went down, and the third turned out never to have had GAD to begin with. (Faustman said it’s relatively common for a long-term type 1 diabetic to not have GAD, and that researchers working on islet-cell transplants have observed similarly confusing GAD results.) Two of the three treated patients showed an increase in regulatory T cells. And, lastly, two out of the three treated patients showed an increase in C-peptide, indicating that they were beginning to make a teensy bit of their own insulin again – an intriguing finding, considering that the study’s subjects, on average, had had type 1 for more than 15 years.


If these results are correct, Faustman’s hope is that BCG could eventually be used as a therapy to kill off the reservoirs of insulin-autoreactive cells – via TNF — in people with type 1 diabetes. By eliminating the T cells that are destroying the insulin-producing cells, her hope is that you could give the body a chance to regenerate some of its ability to produce its own insulin.


Here, however, is where the huge caveats come in: “It’s not like anyone is throwing away their insulin syringes,” says Faustman. The elevation of C-peptide was small, and it did not last long.

What’s more, even if BCG treatment could eliminate enough insulin-autoreactive T cells to allow for the regeneration of beta cells – which will take much more research to definitively prove – there would be many, many questions to answer, like what the ideal dose would be, how often it would need to be given (Faustman thinks it would be a series of “booster”-like shots), whether any other “good” cells are being destroyed (Faustman believes they are not) and what the long-term effects of these repeated booster shots of BCG — and ensuing spikes in TNF – might be.


“Please make sure they don’t think we’re curing type 1,” Faustman emphasized, when I asked her what readers should take away from the study results. Allow me, therefore, to repeat that in all caps: BCG IS NOT A CURE FOR TYPE 1 DIABETES. And no, it is not a good idea to go ask your doctor to vaccinate you against tuberculosis. When I asked her what headline she would write for the study, Faustman paused for a moment before offering something more subdued than most of last week’s teasers:  “Promise for Disease Treatment for People With Advanced Diabetes Seen in Generic TB Drug.”

Her other take-home message? “We’re just happy that we’re optimistic enough to think we can do something at a stage of diabetes where people weren’t even willing to risk doing trials,” she said. Long-term diabetics “have been told they’re too old to be cured,” she continued. “Wouldn’t it be great if we could figure out new things for people with all stages of the disease? I think it opens a window for people to think about the fact that maybe, if we pushed hard enough, we could develop something for them.”


In other words, it’s a type of study that, by not limiting itself to newly diagnosed diabetics, might actually apply to me. That would be something to be excited about.



If you’re interested in finding out more about Faustman’s work, or indicating interest in future studies, visit faustmanlab.org


Catherine Price is the author of 101 Places Not To See Before You Die (101worstplaces.com).  She writes the blog The Reluctant Diabetic. For more from Catherine visit Catherine-Price.com.
Follow Catherine on twitter (@catherine_price)

[1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-08/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-usa-health-diabetesbre8771ik-20120808_1_denise-faustman-islet-cells-jdrf

[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-08/diabetes-may-be-reversed-by-long-used-vaccine-for-tb.html

[3] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041756

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook86Share on Google+5Pin on Pinterest5

Comments (21)

  1. Jeff N. at

    Thanks for sharing your interview with Dr. Faustman with us, Catherine.  I really appreciate having her analysis and yours. 

  2. mybustedpancreas at

    Thank you for this analysis.  There is so much misinformation out there on the internet that it’s hard to find a true explanation of what Faustman’s work is about.  I will say that as a T1 diabetic, I’m skeptical anytime I hear the word “cure.”  Heard it many, many times over the years.  BUT, I do think this therapy holds promise.  A “cure” seems a little impossible, but a therapy that offers better control does not.  I don’t expect to get off insulin in my lifetime, BUT if BCG could offer me the ability to have better control, to experience fewer highs that cause damage to my body, that would represent significant progress. 

  3. Type I - 18 years at

    “… and no drug companies were interested in spending millions of dollars developing an experimental treatment that, if successful, would reduce the market for their other diabetes products.”
    That statement makes my blood boil like nothing else. Big Pharma can go straight to hell. For many reasons, not just this one. Parasites preying on people’s weaknesses.

  4. Context at

    To Type 1 – 18 years:  You are EXACTLY RIGHT! In fact, I copied that exact sentence portion and intended to use it in my comment, but you beat me to it.  The other portion of the piece I copied was “…the study’s author — Denise Faustman, M.D., Ph.D., controversial researcher and director of the Faustman Lab…” Well, duh, or course she’s “controversial.” Read the portion Type 1 – 18 years began her/his comment with and you’ll see why the label “controversial” was hung around Dr. Faustman’s neck. Of course Big Pharma is going to dismiss as junk science anything – or anyone – seeking to undermine their diabetic maintenance drug/supply cash cow.
    I know this sounds like I wear a tinfoil hat, but I honestly believe that there is the distinct possibility a version of the following conversation has taken place in one or more of Big Pharma’s boardrooms in the past. “You did what? You cured diabetes?!?!? Well, wait a minute. Let’s hold off on that. Don’t you realize curing diabetes means the end to our (fill in the blank) billion dollar revenue stream? Until we find something to compensate for that massive hole in our balance sheet, we need to put this cure on the back burner.”
    Cynical? Maybe? But how much Wall Street manipulation news does one need to at least consider the plausibility of what’s being suggested in the previous paragraph. There are more soulless people than we care to think about.

  5. MikeD at

    I think we should expect a cure in our lifetime. Dr Faustman’s work shows real promise and dedication. There seems to be too much politics and greed with big medical companies. Maybe that is where the cure needs to start. My son is only two years into this life changing disease. I will keep my watch over him for as long as I can. It scares the hell out of me when time comes I cannot do that.

  6. Kevin Marshall at

    Context, I completely agree. As a type 1, I’m concerned that there is not only zero motivation to cure diabetes for big drug companies and the researchers they fund, but in fact there’s a HUGE motivation to STOP the cure! 🙁

  7. Randy Anderson at

    Dear Ms. Price,
    Thank you so much for a detailed, factual, and objective investigation of another hyperbole press release from Dr. Faustman’s lab.  I’d like to add a few thoughts to your excellent coverage.  First, no study with just 3 treated patients has any claim to the label, “proof-of-concept”.  I think it was misleading to use that phrase in describing this study.  In my experience, proof-of-concept trials tend to have on the order of 20 to 200 treated patients.  The trial needs enough sample size to differentiate true treatment benefit from chance variation in the measures of interest.  I think it would have been more appropriate to call this study a procedural pilot at best.  Further, I don’t think a study with 3 treated patients is worthy of a press release unless those 3 patients were virtually cured of their disease.  Otherwise, a press release with a mere suggestion of possible benefit in no more than 3 patients plays on the cure longings of the entire T1DM community.  Some researchers seem to make frequent press releases about their work , perhaps for publicity in an effort to promote public and private funding of their research.  I don’t know if that is the case with Dr. Faustman, but I think it was irresponsible to issue a press release without content of greater scientific merit. 

    Second, in my experience, drug companies have just as much humanitarian interest as society in general, perhaps more.  But, no company can survive by pursuing humanitarian interests without some regard toward return on investment.  That truth applies to curing type 1 diabetes, as well.  There are many venture capital companies, private foundations, and drug companies who would love to invest in putative curative treatments for T1DM where there is reasonable scientific evidence of success.  It is disingenuous for any researcher to infer that “pharma companies” have shown benign neglect just because none have chosen to invest in that researcher’s work.  The non-investment may have something to do with an objective scientific review finding insufficient merit to justify the next level of investment risk. 

  8. Thanks, Randy. I agree with you on both counts: the media tends to overblow things (that’s why I tried to provide some context on what the study actually entailed), and drug companies have to think of return on investment at the same time that they consider more humanitarian objectives. (For my thoughts on the subject, see this blog post: http://asweetlife.org/catherine/blogs/news-politics/the-role-of-pharma-are-they-good-or-bad/28078/ ) 

    Thanks again for taking the time to comment!

  9. Cathy at

    After being T1 for just over 33 years, any news is promising.  I follow Dr. Faustman weekly.  She is willing to do the research and do the testing.  As a young child, I always heard that diabetes would never be cured.  Then, at the age of 15 or 16, my doctor had to try to figure out why my blood sugars dropped at a certain time of the month.  Not small drops or dips, I am talking going from 150 to 25 or 30 out of the blue.  (Said that my pancreas must still be producing some insulin)  I still do this at the ripe age of 39.  If I lived in Boston or within the same state or a neighboring state, I would be there to see if I qualified as a trial candidate!  As far as big pharma goes, I cannot stand them!!  True, if a cure is found, they would probably go broke.  That is a risk I am willing to take!!  I would rather be a big pharma company that introduced the CURE!!  Do you not think that would bring more positive attention?  Just a thought…BE WELL ALL!!!

  10. mother at

    This give me and many people live in hope and expectation. and I thind govement of countris should be help to doctors  try about it. it is a responsibel for them because illness like this hurt to society and economoy .
    thank you for your information share with us

  11. Makiba at

    There is no money in cures but billions in treatments…because of that there will be no cures for any diseases soon…when the poor of the world WAKE UP and demand justice for themselves most diseases will be cured because they will no longer be suppressed.

  12. Tammy at

    The first phase of the human trial was to test the safety of BCG in humans. Dr. Faustman did not need more than three people (ask the FDA) because the drug she is testing is already used in generic form around the world. Why spend money on something we already know? The Phase 2 human trial is to test dosages and frequencies. It has been approved by the FDA. I think that since Dr. Faustman has gotten this far, it would be a real shame if we did not find the rest of the private funding for her to keep this branch of research going. This is too important a leaf to be left unturned.  Dr. faustman is very accessible through her website at Faustmanlab.org. If you don’t understand something about her research or you are afraid to believe in a cure, get in touch with her and get your information first hand! She is awesome woman.

  13. interested at

    @Andy Price: 
    “Second, in my experience, drug companies have just as much humanitarian interest as society in general, perhaps more.”   Is that why we have almost weekly reports of drug companies being fined for faking data, pushing drugs for off-label use without regard to human life? Is this the Dr Randy Anderson from PPD, a drug discovery research organization working on diabetes research? I think everyone will have to take your words with a grain of salt. 

    The treatment that will work for type 1 diabetes will be one that can work for other autoimmune diseases as well. BCG satisfies that. Italian researchers have shown regeneration with BCG in MS patients. This might not be a cure but it is certainly better than anything else out there for autoimmune diseases including T1.

  14. interested at

    P.S. Randy, I am not questioning your personal good will and dedication to your work. However, it is naive to say that big pharma is motivated by anything other than profits. You should know that big pharma companies often buy hopeful startups just to kill them if the product is a threat to pharma’s bottom line. There is no humanitarian interest at the top corporate level.

  15. Randy Anderson at

    Hello Andy,
    In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that I have had T1DM for 49 years.  My firsborn son has had T1DM since the age of 4, now 14 years.  I do whatever I can to help foster research to find a cure for T1DM.  I help raise research funds for JDRF, an organization founded (and mostly run) by parents of T1DMs and T1DMs.  In my job, I do all I can to help pharma companies advance curative treatments for T1DM.  No one wants to see this disease cured any more than me. 

    Everybody wants an easy answer.  It’s easy to believe that big pharma wants to buy up any curative treatment to prevent it from coming to fruition.  But, I work  in the industry every day.  I’ve never seen evidence that this easy idea has any merit.  In contrast, I see a lot of evidence that this easy idea is as from the truth.  

    The best I can tell, curing T1DM is an incredibly difficult problem.  The immune system has evolved over eons to be astoundingly effective and adaptive at protecting us against an ongoing onslaught of germs and foreign proteins.  As I understand, something like 20% of all human genes are used to manage the immune system; not build it, just regulate it.  

    Selective immune tolerance induction is the holy grail of curing T1DM, changing the cells of the immune system to tolerate the surface proteins on beta cells, yet continue their vigilent attack on everything foreign.  This objective is so easy to say!  But in a system where the same cell can change rolls repeatedly, or do one thing in one area of the body, and the opposite thing in another, all in interaction with dozens or hundreds of other specialized cell types, all working toward self-defense, it has to be incredibly challenging to discern where to intervene and how!

    I won’t attempt to defend free enterprize as a good way to get good things done.  But consider this thought.  Curing T1DM is a slam-dunk guarantee of winning a Nobel Prize.  There must be 100 top researchers in T1DM and autoimmunity who would love to win a Nobel Prize in Medicine.  If there were an easy path to a T1DM cure, one of these brilliant researchers would have already done it.  I think the truth is just more complicated.  They work doggedly to discover the next piece of the puzzle, using their current best understanding of what the big picture might look like. 

    From the best I can tell, that’s the hard truth.

  16. Diana at

    I think the pharmacies could start to try business in “medicine that really cure diabetes” not just selling more and more insulin. Things changes for the good of all of us, and pharmacies should change too along with it.

  17. Diaz at

    Randy, you’ve already had one major hole punched in your previous comment re: the nature of this phase of human trials. Instead of responding to what is a pretty salient point, you continue with your eeyorism. We know curing diabetes is complicated. No one disputes that. But the foundations (like JDRF) and the pharmaceutical companies have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to finding a cure.

    The JDRF, or any number of other groups, could fund Dr. Faustman’s next phase of research tomorrow. Why don’t they? Let’s acknowledge the fact that she’s pushed the envelope further than any other researcher.

    But we both know that’s not going to happen, and it will be because of people who mouth the same negative generalizations that you seem so intent on forcing on the rest of us. If you can’t contribute something positive, Randy, then at least have enough courtesy to get the ****** out of the way.

  18. Diaz at

    One other thing I hope future Googlers of this subject will find interesting. In the intervening period since Randy went all wet blanket on this blog post, one of the biggest manufacturers of BCG has taken their entire BCG production capacity off-line due to “environmental reasons.” They won’t be making any more BCG until sometime next year. Apparently Sanofi Pasteur has a burning desire to avoid becoming the next Peter Pan Peanut Butter of the pharmaceutical world. Or something…

  19. Vera at

    Concerning the significance of the study, I’d like to point you to this discussion by Joshua Levy: Summary of Dr. Faustman’s Phase I Results
    It is a great summery.
    In my opininon: Be aware of the fact that a scientific study is always conducted with the aim of proofing or rejecting a theory, which is tested by experiment. In this respect, Dr. Faustmans study has unfortunately “failed” (there is no failing of her here, but her theory got rejected be the results of her experiment, which certainly is a scientific accomplishment). While it was a valuable scientific work, I don’t see any potential for a cure evolving from it. Therefore I’d consider to invest my donation budget into other projects.

  20. Jacquie DV at

    Wow.  Talk about being total Debbie Downers.  

    How excited should we be? Very. The world has become a cold and cruel place when it comes to true, good-intentioned advocacy.  Until you wake up uninsured for reasons beyond your control and you cannot afford to purchase your medicine and treament tools at retail cost, you cannot fully appreciate how a cure trumps treatment every day of the week. 

    I have had type 1 for nearly 30 years.  I don’t have a lifelong tally of the money I’ve laid out for copays on testiing supplies, pump supplies, and insulin, but I DID manage to record the expenses incurred and the money I spent to buy the stuff at retail prices while while I endured the 6-month required waiting period (which ended up being more like 8 months) to enroll in the goverment PCIP plan.

    In that eight-month period, I was hospitalized three times — the last time I stayed in ICU for five days.   Realizing I am a slave to health insurance coverage because of the cost of insulin and treatment supplies was a terrible eye-opener. I want a cure, and any research organization that makes honest strides to find a cure is worth getting excited about.  

  21. sidonija at

    my son is suffering from diabetes for 4 years, I’m sorry my English is poor, it had sugar 56 mmol now has 9 years old, I would give that son back to health, I hope to soon find a cure. We’re from Slovenia europa

Add a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *