Dataset Information

Co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The immunopathogenesis of type 1 diabetes mellitus is associated with T-cell autoimmunity. To be fully active, immune T cells need a co-stimulatory signal in addition to the main antigen-driven signal. Abatacept modulates co-stimulation and prevents full T-cell activation. We evaluated the effect of abatacept in recent-onset type 1 diabetes.

Methods

In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, patients aged 6-45 years recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive abatacept (10 mg/kg, maximum 1000 mg per dose) or placebo infusions intravenously on days 1, 14, 28, and monthly for a total of 27 infusions over 2 years. Computer-generated permuted block randomisation was used, with a block size of 3 and stratified by participating site. Neither patients nor research personnel were aware of treatment assignments. The primary outcome was baseline-adjusted geometric mean 2-h area-under-the-curve (AUC) serum C-peptide concentration after a mixed-meal tolerance test at 2 years' follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat for all patients for whom data were available. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00505375.

Findings

112 patients were assigned to treatment groups (77 abatacept, 35 placebo). Adjusted C-peptide AUC was 59% (95% CI 6·1-112) higher at 2 years with abatacept (n=73, 0·378 nmol/L) than with placebo (n=30, 0·238 nmol/L; p=0·0029). The difference between groups was present throughout the trial, with an estimated 9·6 months' delay (95% CI 3·47-15·6) in C-peptide reduction with abatacept. There were few infusion-related adverse events (36 reactions occurred in 17 [22%] patients on abatacept and 11 reactions in six [17%] on placebo). There was no increase in infections (32 [42%] patients on abatacept vs 15 [43%] on placebo) or neutropenia (seven [9%] vs five [14%]).

Interpretation

Co-stimulation modulation with abatacept slowed reduction in ?-cell function over 2 years. The beneficial effect suggests that T-cell activation still occurs around the time of clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Yet, despite continued administration of abatacept over 24 months, the decrease in ?-cell function with abatacept was parallel to that with placebo after 6 months of treatment, causing us to speculate that T-cell activation lessens with time. Further observation will establish whether the beneficial effect continues after cessation of abatacept infusions.

Funding

US National Institutes of Health.

SUBMITTER: Orban T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3462593 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Orban Tihamer T Bundy Brian B Becker Dorothy J DJ DiMeglio Linda A LA Gitelman Stephen E SE Goland Robin R Gottlieb Peter A PA Greenbaum Carla J CJ Marks Jennifer B JB Monzavi Roshanak R Moran Antoinette A Raskin Philip P Rodriguez Henry H Russell William E WE Schatz Desmond D Wherrett Diane D Wilson Darrell M DM Krischer Jeffrey P JP Skyler Jay S JS

Lancet (London, England) 20110628 9789

<h4>Background</h4>The immunopathogenesis of type 1 diabetes mellitus is associated with T-cell autoimmunity. To be fully active, immune T cells need a co-stimulatory signal in addition to the main antigen-driven signal. Abatacept modulates co-stimulation and prevents full T-cell activation. We evaluated the effect of abatacept in recent-onset type 1 diabetes.<h4>Methods</h4>In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, patients aged 6-45 years recently diagnosed with type 1 di ...[more]

PMID: 21719096

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInnate immunity contributes to the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, but until now no randomised, controlled trials of blockade of the key innate immune mediator interleukin-1 have been done. We aimed to assess whether canakinumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-1 antibody, or anakinra, a human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, improved β-cell function in recent-onset type 1 diabetes.MethodsWe did two randomised, placebo-controlled trials in two groups of patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes and mixed-meal-tolerance-test-stimulated C peptide of at least 0·2 nM. Patients in the canakinumab trial were aged 6-45 years and those in the anakinra trial were aged 18-35 years. Patients in the canakinumab trial were enrolled at 12 sites in the USA and Canada and those in the anakinra trial were enrolled at 14 sites across Europe. Participants were randomly assigned by computer-generated blocked randomisation to subcutaneous injection of either 2 mg/kg (maximum 300 mg) canakinumab or placebo monthly for 12 months or 100 mg anakinra or placebo daily for 9 months. Participants and carers were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was baseline-adjusted 2-h area under curve C-peptide response to the mixed meal tolerance test at 12 months (canakinumab trial) and 9 months (anakinra trial). Analyses were by intention to treat. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00947427 and NCT00711503, and EudraCT number 2007-007146-34.FindingsPatients were enrolled in the canakinumab trial between Nov 12, 2010, and April 11, 2011, and in the anakinra trial between Jan 26, 2009, and May 25, 2011. 69 patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab (n=47) or placebo (n=22) monthly for 12 months and 69 were randomly assigned to anakinra (n=35) or placebo (n=34) daily for 9 months. No interim analyses were done. 45 canakinumab-treated and 21 placebo-treated patients in the canakinumab trial and 25 anakinra-treated and 26 placebo-treated patients in the anakinra trial were included in the primary analyses. The difference in C peptide area under curve between the canakinumab and placebo groups at 12 months was 0·01 nmol/L (95% CI -0·11 to 0·14; p=0·86), and between the anakinra and the placebo groups at 9 months was 0·02 nmol/L (-0·09 to 0·15; p=0·71). The number and severity of adverse events did not differ between groups in the canakinumab trial. In the anakinra trial, patients in the anakinra group had significantly higher grades of adverse events than the placebo group (p=0·018), which was mainly because of a higher number of injection site reactions in the anakinra group.InterpretationCanakinumab and anakinra were safe but were not effective as single immunomodulatory drugs in recent-onset type 1 diabetes. Interleukin-1 blockade might be more effective in combination with treatments that target adaptive immunity in organ-specific autoimmune disorders.FundingNational Institutes of Health and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundThe antibiotic minocycline has neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties that could prevent or reverse progressive neuropathic changes implicated in recent-onset schizophrenia. In the BeneMin study, we aimed to replicate the benefit of minocycline on negative symptoms reported in previous pilot studies, and to understand the mechanisms involved.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited people with a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder that had begun within the past 5 years with continuing positive symptoms from 12 National Health Service (NHS) trusts. Participants were randomly assigned according to an automated permuted blocks algorithm, stratified by pharmacy, to receive minocycline (200 mg per day for 2 weeks, then 300 mg per day for the remainder of the 12-month study period) or matching placebo, which were added to their continuing treatment. The primary clinical outcome was the negative symptom subscale score of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scales (PANSS) across follow-ups at months 2, 6, 9, and 12. The primary biomarker outcomes were medial prefrontal grey-matter volume, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation during a working memory task, and plasma concentration of interleukin 6. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN49141214, and the EU Clinical Trials register (EudraCT) number is 2010-022463-35I.FindingsBetween April 16, 2013, and April 30, 2015, we recruited 207 people and randomly assigned them to receive minocycline (n=104) or placebo (n=103). Compared with placebo, the addition of minocycline had no effect on ratings of negative symptoms (treatment effect difference -0·19, 95% CI -1·23 to 0·85; p=0·73). The primary biomarker outcomes did not change over time and were not affected by minocycline. The groups did not differ in the rate of serious adverse events (n=11 in placebo group and n=18 in the minocycline group), which were mostly due to admissions for worsening psychiatric state (n=10 in the placebo group and n=15 in the minocycline group). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (n=12 in the placebo group, n=19 in the minocycline group), psychiatric (n=16 in placebo group, n=8 in minocycline group), nervous system (n=8 in the placebo group, n=12 in the minocycline group), and dermatological (n=10 in the placebo group, n=8 in the minocycline group).InterpretationMinocycline does not benefit negative or other symptoms of schizophrenia over and above adherence to routine clinical care in first-episode psychosis. There was no evidence of a persistent progressive neuropathic or inflammatory process underpinning negative symptoms. Further trials of minocycline in early psychosis are not warranted until there is clear evidence of an inflammatory process, such as microgliosis, against which minocycline has known efficacy.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership.

Project description:BackgroundEnhanced glutamatergic transmission leading to motor neuron death is considered the major pathophysiological mechanism of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Motor cortex excitability can be suppressed by transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS), thus tSMS can be evaluated as a potential treatment for ALS. The aim of present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of tSMS in ALS.MethodsIn this phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned ALS patients to receive daily tSMS or placebo stimulation over a period of 6 months. For each participant we calculated mean disease monthly progression rate (MPR) as the variation of the total ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSRFS-R) score, before the beginning of the treatment (over a period of at least three months) and over the six-month treatment period. The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in MPR before and after the beginning of treatment. Secondary outcomes included safety and tolerability, compliance, and changes in corticospinal output. A long-term follow-up of 18 months was performed in all patients who completed the six-month treatment considering a composite endpoint event (tracheostomy or death). Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT04393467, status: closed.FindingsForty participants were randomly assigned to real (n = 21) or placebo stimulation (n = 19). Thirty-two participants (18 real and 14 placebo) completed the 6-month treatment. The MPR did not show statistically significant differences between the two arms during the pre-treatment (mean ± Standard deviation; Real: 1.02 ± 0.62, Sham: 1.02 ± 0.57, p-value = 1.00) and treatment period (Real: 0.90 ± 0.55, Sham: 0.94 ± 0.55, p-value = 0.83). Results for secondary clinical endpoints showed that the treatment is feasible and safe, being compliance with tSMS high. The change in corticospinal output did not differ significantly between the two groups. At the end of the long-term follow-up of 18 months, patients of real group had a statistically significant higher tracheostomy-free survival compared with patients of placebo group (Hazard Ratio = 0.27 95% Confidence interval 0.09-0.80, p-value = 0.019).InterpretationtSMS did not modify disease progression during the 6 months of treatment. However, long-term follow-up revealed a substantial increase in tracheostomy free survival in patients treated with real stimulation supporting the evaluation of tSMS in larger and more prolonged studies.FundingThe "Fondazione 'Nicola Irti' per le opere di carità e di cultura", Rome, Italy, supported present study.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of varenicline (a licensed cigarette smoking cessation aid) in helping users of smokeless tobacco to quit.DesignDouble blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.SettingMedical clinics (mostly primary care) in Norway and Sweden.ParticipantsMen and women aged ≥18 who used smokeless tobacco at least eight times a day, with no abstinence period over three months within one year before screening, who wanted to quit all tobacco use. Participants were excluded if they used any other form of tobacco (except smokeless tobacco) or medication to stop smoking within three months of screening or had any pre-existing medical or psychiatric condition.InterventionsVarenicline 1 mg twice daily (titrated during the first week) or placebo for 12 weeks, with 14 weeks' follow-up after treatment.Main outcome measuresThe primary end point was the four week continuous abstinence rate at the end of treatment (weeks 9-12) confirmed with cotinine concentration. A secondary end point was continuous abstinence rate for weeks 9-26. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated.Results431 participants (213 varenicline; 218 placebo) were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug. Participants' demographics and baseline use of smokeless tobacco were similar (89% (189) and 90% (196), respectively, were men; mean age in both groups was 43.9; participants used smokeless tobacco products about 15 times a day, and about 80% first used smokeless tobacco within 30 minutes after awakening). Continuous abstinence rate at week 9-12 was higher in the varenicline group than the placebo group (59% (125) v 39% (85); relative risk 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 1.87, P<0.001; risk difference 20%; number needed to treat 5). The advantage of varenicline over placebo persisted through 14 weeks of follow-up (continuous abstinence rate at week 9-26 was 45% (95) v 34% (73); relative risk 1.42, 1.08 to 1.79, P=0.012; risk difference 11%; number needed to treat 9). The most common adverse events in the varenicline group compared with the placebo group were nausea (35% (74) v 6% (14)), fatigue (10% (22) v 7% (15)), headache (10% (22) v 9% (20)), and sleep disorder (10% (22) v 7% (15)). Few adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment (9% (19) and 4% (9), respectively), and serious adverse events occurred in two (1%) and three (1%) participants, respectively.ConclusionVarenicline can help people to give up smokeless tobacco and has an acceptable safety profile. The response rate in the placebo group in this study was high, suggesting a population less resistant to treatment than smokers.Trial registrationNCT00717093.

Project description:BackgroundExenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has neuroprotective effects in preclinical models of Parkinson's disease. We investigated whether these effects would be apparent in a clinical trial.MethodsIn this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with moderate Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of exenatide 2 mg or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks in addition to their regular medication, followed by a 12-week washout period. Eligible patients were aged 25-75 years, had idiopathic Parkinson's disease as measured by Queen Square Brain Bank criteria, were on dopaminergic treatment with wearing-off effects, and were at Hoehn and Yahr stage 2·5 or less when on treatment. Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two strata block design according to disease severity. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the adjusted difference in the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically defined off-medication state at 60 weeks. All efficacy analyses were based on a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who completed any post-randomisation follow-up assessments. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01971242) and is completed.FindingsBetween June 18, 2014, and March 13, 2015, 62 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 32 to exenatide and 30 to placebo. Our primary analysis included 31 patients in the exenatide group and 29 patients in the placebo group. At 60 weeks, off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1·0 points (95% CI -2·6 to 0·7) in the exenatide group and worsened by 2·1 points (-0·6 to 4·8) in the placebo group, an adjusted mean difference of -3·5 points (-6·7 to -0·3; p=0·0318). Injection site reactions and gastrointestinal symptoms were common adverse events in both groups. Six serious adverse events occurred in the exenatide group and two in the placebo group, although none in either group were judged to be related to the study interventions.InterpretationExenatide had positive effects on practically defined off-medication motor scores in Parkinson's disease, which were sustained beyond the period of exposure. Whether exenatide affects the underlying disease pathophysiology or simply induces long-lasting symptomatic effects is uncertain. Exenatide represents a major new avenue for investigation in Parkinson's disease, and effects on everyday symptoms should be examined in longer-term trials.FundingMichael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Project description:BackgroundIrbesartan, a long acting selective angiotensin-1 receptor inhibitor, in Marfan syndrome might reduce aortic dilatation, which is associated with dissection and rupture. We aimed to determine the effects of irbesartan on the rate of aortic dilatation in children and adults with Marfan syndrome.MethodsWe did a placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial at 22 centres in the UK. Individuals aged 6-40 years with clinically confirmed Marfan syndrome were eligible for inclusion. Study participants were all given 75 mg open label irbesartan once daily, then randomly assigned to 150 mg of irbesartan (increased to 300 mg as tolerated) or matching placebo. Aortic diameter was measured by echocardiography at baseline and then annually. All images were analysed by a core laboratory blinded to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the rate of aortic root dilatation. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN90011794.FindingsBetween March 14, 2012, and May 1, 2015, 192 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to irbesartan (n=104) or placebo (n=88), and all were followed for up to 5 years. Median age at recruitment was 18 years (IQR 12-28), 99 (52%) were female, mean blood pressure was 110/65 mm Hg (SDs 16 and 12), and 108 (56%) were taking β blockers. Mean baseline aortic root diameter was 34·4 mm in the irbesartan group (SD 5·8) and placebo group (5·5). The mean rate of aortic root dilatation was 0·53 mm per year (95% CI 0·39 to 0·67) in the irbesartan group compared with 0·74 mm per year (0·60 to 0·89) in the placebo group, with a difference in means of -0·22 mm per year (-0·41 to -0·02, p=0·030). The rate of change in aortic Z score was also reduced by irbesartan (difference in means -0·10 per year, 95% CI -0·19 to -0·01, p=0·035). Irbesartan was well tolerated with no observed differences in rates of serious adverse events.InterpretationIrbesartan is associated with a reduction in the rate of aortic dilatation in children and young adults with Marfan syndrome and could reduce the incidence of aortic complications.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, the UK Marfan Trust, the UK Marfan Association.

Dataset Information

Co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets