Technology, injections & supplies

The type 1 pill that helps while you take it: baricitinib’s honest update

At EASD 2025 (reported 19 September 2025) a follow-up of the BANDIT trial found baricitinib’s benefit faded once the daily pill was stopped.

Written by Updated 20 September 2025 3 min read
The 60-second answer

Baricitinib is one of the more interesting names in Type 1 research, partly because it is not exotic: it is an existing, affordable tablet already used for other conditions. The appeal is that in a trial it helped protect the body’s own insulin-making for a while after diagnosis, by calming the immune attack behind Type 1. The honest update from 2025 is the catch: when people stopped taking it, the benefit faded and their diabetes carried on progressing. So it looks like a help while you take it, not a one-off fix, and it is still being studied.

  • Baricitinib calms part of the immune system, and in Type 1 the idea is to slow the immune attack on the insulin-making cells.
  • In the BANDIT trial, people who had recently been diagnosed kept more of their own insulin production for a time while taking the daily tablet.
  • The 2025 follow-up found that once the tablet was stopped, that protection did not hold and the condition progressed.
  • Because it is a cheap, existing medicine, a version that worked would matter a lot to the NHS, which is part of why it is watched closely.
  • This is trial research, not an approved Type 1 treatment, so it is not something you can be prescribed for Type 1 today.
What happened

What the 2025 update actually said

At a major diabetes research meeting in September 2025, researchers reported a follow-up from the BANDIT trial. BANDIT had tested baricitinib, taken as a daily tablet, in people recently diagnosed with Type 1, to see whether it could protect the insulin-making cells the immune system was still attacking. Early on, the results looked promising: people on the tablet held on to more of their own insulin production than those who were not.

The follow-up tempered that. Once baricitinib was stopped, participants’ diabetes progressed, which suggests the protection depended on staying on the medicine rather than being a lasting reset. That is an important and honest finding, even though it is a more modest headline than the early excitement.

Why it matters here

Promising, but genuinely unfinished

It is worth being clear about what this is and is not. Protecting some of your own insulin production can help, because a body still making a little of its own insulin often has steadier glucose and sometimes fewer severe lows. That is a real prize. But this is not a cure, and it is not a delay drug for people found before diagnosis. It is an idea about ongoing treatment that now needs more research to know whether long-term use is safe and worth it.

This audience has heard a decade of hopeful headlines that went quiet, so the fair way to file baricitinib is neither breakthrough nor bust. It is one honest step: an existing, cheap medicine that does something measurable while taken, with real questions still open. If it does reach people with Type 1, that is years away and depends on further trials and approval, not months.

What to notice

Worth knowing

This is research, not a treatment you can ask for: baricitinib is not approved for Type 1 in the UK.
The trial was in people recently diagnosed, exploring whether it protects the insulin still being made, not a treatment for long-standing Type 1.
The headline caution is that the benefit needed the tablet to continue; stopping it lost the effect.
Further trials are needed before anyone knows whether ongoing use is safe and worthwhile, so this is a watch-this-space, not a near-term option.
What to ask your team

Questions that make an appointment useful

"Is there any Type 1 research or trial that someone recently diagnosed like me could look into?"
"Where can I find reliable, plain-English updates on research like this without the hype?"
"What does protecting my own remaining insulin actually mean for someone at my stage?"
Sources