The term “type 1 diabetes” generally conjures up images of insulin. That makes sense, because insulin is the main treatment for this common disease. But it isn’t a cure. A type of cell transplant that comes close to a cure for some people with type 1 diabetes, a technique pioneered and tested in the United States, is now available in many countries but is still deemed an experimental procedure in the U.S., making it almost impossible to get.

That doesn’t make sense to us.

Type 1 diabetes, which affects 1.25 million American children and adults, and more than 20 million people around the world, is a challenging chronic disease caused by the body’s inability to make insulin. Among its most severe forms is brittle diabetes. People with brittle diabetes frequently experience large swings in blood sugar that can quickly move from too high to too low or vice versa. Severely low blood sugar, called hypoglycemia, can cause sudden and unexpected seizures, coma, heart attacks, and even death.


Insulin is made by specialized cells in the pancreas called islet cells. Transplanting these cells from a donated pancreas to an individual with brittle diabetes can restore the recipient’s ability to naturally produce insulin. The procedure has a record of effectiveness. A Phase 3 clinical trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, for which one of us (C.R.) was an investigator, showed that such transplants worked in 80% to 90% of the patients treated in eight centers in North America. The procedure virtually eliminated the risk of life-threatening hypoglycemia one and two years after the transplant. As with other types of transplant, the recipient must take anti-rejection drugs.

Individuals with brittle diabetes in Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia can receive islet cell transplants, much the same way that individuals who need new hearts or livers can receive transplants. Islet cell transplants are even performed in China and Iran, whose doctors came to the U.S. to learn the technique and carried it back home. So why is this successful procedure, which can vastly improve the lives of those living with brittle diabetes, available in the U.S. only after a convoluted process that is often impossible to complete?

If a patient needed a pancreas transplant (which would include islet cells), he or she would be registered on the national organ transplant list and, once a pancreas became available, would receive the transplant, which is generally paid for by insurance.

But for a less-invasive islet cell transplant, an institution that wants to perform the procedure must file an investigational new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration, a very challenging process — and also figure out how to pay for the transplant.

That’s due to the way the FDA interprets the code of federal regulations; specifically the criteria of minimal manipulation of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products.

After islet cells are extracted from a donated pancreas, they need to sit in a culture medium at a temperature between 72 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit for two to three days. This gives the transplant team time to perform quality controls on the cells, and also to prepare the recipient for the transplant.

The FDA has interpreted the brief hiatus for islet cells as going beyond minimal manipulation, a concept based on the premise that processing cells does not alter their relevant biological characteristics. The hibernation process for islet cells does not change the cells’ characteristics or increase their number, both of which occur with the manipulation of advanced stem cell therapies, which reasonably need extra scrutiny.

The European Medicines Agency has determined that transplanting pancreatic islet cells should just follow the standard rules of organ transplantation, even though the cells require a brief hibernation period. This recommendation is based in part on its view that transplanting a pancreas, with islet cells intact, is an organ transplant, so there is no reason to treat transplantation of just the islet cells as anything different.

Because of the benefits to the thousands of Americans with brittle diabetes, there is a strong incentive to harmonize the FDA’s approach to islet cell transplantation with the EMA’s approach.

More than a decade ago, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service approved islet cell transplantation for type 1 diabetes — an approval based on an extensive review of the evidence generated by clinical trials conducted in the United States. Our federal dollars supported that research, and this treatment ought to be available to U.S. citizens.

Islet cell transplantation is not a panacea for all forms of type 1 diabetes. And transplantation of any organ, including islet cells, requires the use of anti-rejection drugs that can have a range of adverse side effects. That said, individuals with severe brittle diabetes who are fully informed of the risks and benefits should have the ability to access this lifesaving treatment option.

We fully understand the FDA’s efforts to rein in companies marketing unapproved stem cell products that have little or no evidence to support their use and that may put patients at risk. Yet the FDA should stay equally focused on its commitment to approving evidence-based transformative treatments for devastating diseases and conditions, including brittle diabetes.

Camillo Ricordi, M.D., is professor of surgery and medicine and chief of the Division of Cellular Transplantation at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, where he has directed the Diabetes Research Institute and Cell Transplant Center since 1996. Anthony Japour, M.D., is a medical director at ICON plc. The views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the University of Miami or ICON.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • I used to have brittle diabetes and I received an islet transplant with Dott Ricordi method over 14 years ago.I have been free from insulin injections for all this years with perfect glucose control and I don ‘ t believe I woud be alive without this procedure that chanced my life.I hope that patients in the USA will be able to benefit from this treatment like patiens Canada Europe and Australia already do.Thank you for dedicating your life to improuve ours. If you need contact Prof Ricordi prof Bertuzzi or me by Antonella

    • Thank you Antonella. Helping one patient at a time while trying to develop a cure for all is what keeps us focused on our mission. Seeing how this treatment has improved and changed the life of patients like you is what keeps us focused on a biological cure.

  • I am a patient at the diabetes research institute in Miami, Florida. I received two Islet cell transplant’s at the Diabetes Research Institue in 2005. Today, my body continues to produce insulin on its own from the islet cells I received from my two donors.

    I was one of the “Brittle” diabetics that Dr. Ricordi has referred to in this article. Although I am aware that other terms are used today to me the brittle term is most accurate for what I experienced pre-transplant.

    To no longer worry about low blood sugars (I was completely hypoglycemic unaware), as well as no longer experiencing high blood sugars has been a gift and a blessing.

    Yes, I take immunosuppressive medications each day and I am aware that there is a possibility of long term problems from these meds. However, for me, because I could not feel any low blood sugar symptoms, I lived in constant fear of killing someone or myself because of a low blood sugar while driving. Today that fear is gone and the health I have because of receiving the islet cell transplants outweighs the risk of something that may or may not happen in the future because of the immunosuppressive medication.

    I am so grateful for Dr Ricordi, as well as all of the Drs, researchers and scientists that have made the life I now live possible.

    Someone asked me if I would do it again and without hesitation I said YES. My only regret is that this treatment is not available in the US for the many patients that need it.

    • Dear Ms. Eastman– thank you for your comment on our Op-Ed. Testimonials like these from real individuals are incredibly important to assist decision makers in making innovative treatments available particularly when the research supports it.

  • I’m quite surprised Dr. Ricordi is using the term “brittle diabetes” Most experts in Endcrinology see this as an antiquated term – “Patients and their providers use it as a fall back or an excuse to stop looking for answers,” said Gary Scheiner, a diabetes educator and the owner and clinical director of Integrated Diabetes Services, based in Pennsylvania. “They think there’s nothing they can do, but that’s not the case.”

    Depending on the circumstances, clinicians and educators now prefer terms such as labile diabetes, glucose variability or, simply, uncontrolled diabetes.

  • And what about xenotransplant? Dont need immunosupressive drugs and the font of islets are actually very well controled. Human pancreas donators are insuficients. There are some avance about this terapy in US?

    • Dear Ana- Innovations in medicine are built one advance at a time. Each advance brings greater knowledge that can be used to get us to the next step. Eventually, I’m confident we will have a cure for diabetes that will not require immunosuppressive drugs.

    • Thank you Rep. Donna E. Shalala, coming from the longest-serving Secretary of Health and Human Services in American history, and one of America’s foremost experts on health care, it means a lot to all of us dedicating our lives to finding a cure. The first randomized controlled trial comparing islet transplantation with insulin therapy indicated superiority of islet transplantation on all variables considered, from quality of life to metabolic control. New data on two decades patient survival following islet transplant recipients will soon be published and will help understand why long term islet transplant recipients consider receiving the transplant like “winning a lottery”. There is still a lot of work to be done, but the significant progress in the field has been unquestionable, and clearly apparent to all of those following open access, peer reviewed literature. It is because of our collective progress that the procedure is now approved and reimbursed in several other countries, ironically even based on the promising results obtained in US clinical trials . I hope that the FDA will consider our comments.

  • The amount of cadaver islet cells available at any given time will only treat 1/10 of 1% of all Type I’s in the US. The other issue is of course the life time commitment of immunosuppressive drugs. I am with Tony, I have heard of “breakthroughs” in Type I diabetes for over 30 years now with zero clinical application. Type I’s are treating their disease the same as they have since the discovery of insulin in 1921, with subcutaneous insulin injections. I can’t think of any other disease who’s treatment progress has been so lacking. It is truly a crime.

  • Over the last decade I’ve read, one after the other, of “breakthroughs” in the Big D. Stem Cells, Gene Therapy etc all Big Headlines, all Big Claims – ZIP has advanced in to actual curative treatments available for patients. Billions of dollars, over generations….and always 5yrs off! Enough, it’s time for the patient community to just say enough…..hard metrics next to claims…and clear focus on clinical delivery…no more generations to wait!

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy