Another shot at immune-invisible insulin cells: what is new at ISSCR 2026
Researchers reported a first-in-human test of immune-engineered insulin-making cells designed to survive without lifelong anti-rejection drugs.
Another team is now testing insulin-making cells built to hide from the immune system. That changes nothing about your care today, but it is a good sign for the long run. Reported at a major stem-cell conference in July 2026, the aim matches what Sana and others are chasing: transplanted cells that survive without lifelong anti-rejection drugs. It is a first-in-human study, the earliest rung of testing in people.
- Today’s islet transplants need anti-rejection drugs (medicines that hold the immune system back) for life, and those drugs are harsh, which is why transplants are rare.
- The prize every team wants is cells the immune system ignores, so a transplant would no longer need those drugs.
- This study is first-in-human: the earliest stage of testing in people, right after lab and animal work, in very few participants.
- It joins Sana and other groups on the same problem, so the idea is being tried several different ways at once.
One more team, the same goal
At ISSCR 2026, a large stem-cell research meeting, a group reported the start of a first-in-human test of insulin-making cells engineered to be less visible to the immune system. The team describes the goal as a cell replacement approach that can survive and keep working without the need for ongoing anti-rejection drugs, the medicines that current islet transplants depend on. If that sounds familiar, it is: Sana has been reporting on the same idea, and other groups are too. The exact engineering differs from team to team, but the target they share is the same one, transplanted cells the body does not reject.
Why first-in-human is both hopeful and slow
First-in-human is exactly what it says: the first time something is tried in people, after the lab and animal stages, usually in a small number of participants and watched closely for safety above all else. It is the start of human testing, not the end. So why report it as good news? Because a field where several capable teams are independently chasing the same goal tends to move faster, and is harder to derail, than a single lone bet. If one approach stumbles, the others carry on. That is genuinely encouraging for the long run. It is also still years, larger trials and regulators away from anything a UK clinic could offer.