Dataset Information

Interleukin-1 antagonism in type 1 diabetes of recent onset: two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Innate 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 ?-cell function in recent-onset type 1 diabetes.

Methods

We 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.

Findings

Patients 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.

Interpretation

Canakinumab 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.

Funding

National Institutes of Health and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

SUBMITTER: Moran A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3827771 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interleukin-1 antagonism in type 1 diabetes of recent onset: two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Moran Antoinette A Bundy Brian B Becker Dorothy J DJ DiMeglio Linda A LA Gitelman Stephen E SE Goland Robin R Greenbaum Carla J CJ Herold Kevan C KC Marks Jennifer B JB Raskin Philip P Sanda Srinath S Schatz Desmond D Wherrett Diane K DK Wilson Darrell M DM Krischer Jeffrey P JP Skyler Jay S JS Pickersgill Linda L de Koning Eelco E Ziegler Anette-G AG Böehm Bernhard B Badenhoop Klaus K Schloot Nanette N Bak Jens Friis JF Pozzilli Paolo P Mauricio Didac D Donath Marc Y MY Castaño Luis L Wägner Ana A Lervang Hans Henrik HH Perrild Hans H Mandrup-Poulsen Thomas T

Lancet (London, England) 20130405 9881

<h4>Background</h4>Innate 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.<h4>Methods</h4>We did two randomised, placebo-controlled tr ...[more]

PMID: 23562090

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsIn 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.Findings112 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%]).InterpretationCo-stimulation modulation with abatacept slowed reduction in β-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 β-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.FundingUS National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Project description:BackgroundMemantine has been used off-label to treat frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD). A previous 26-week open-label study suggested a transient, modest benefit on neuropsychiatric symptoms as measured by the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI). We aimed to determine whether memantine is an effective treatment for FTD.MethodsWe did a randomised, parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 20 mg memantine taken orally daily for 26 weeks in patients with FTD. Participants met Neary criteria for behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD) or semantic dementia and had characteristic brain atrophy. Use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors was prohibited. Individuals were randomly assigned to receive either memantine or matched placebo tablets (1:1) in blocks of two and four patients. All patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were the change in total NPI score and clinical global impression of change (CGIC) score after 26 weeks and were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00545974.FindingsOf 100 patients screened, 81 were randomly assigned to receive memantine (39 patients) or placebo (42 patients). Five (6%) patients discontinued, and 76 completed the 26-week treatment. Enrolment numbers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase inhibitors off-label rather than participate in a clinical trial. Memantine treatment had no effect on either the NPI (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI -3·9 to 8·3, p=0·47) or CGIC (mean difference 0·0, -0·4 to 0·4, p=0·90) after 26 weeks of treatment. Memantine was generally well tolerated; however, patients in the memantine group had more frequent cognitive adverse events (six patients) than those in the placebo group (one).InterpretationMemantine treatment showed no benefit in patients with FTD. These data do not support memantine use in FTD.FundingForest Research Institute.

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.

Dataset Information

Interleukin-1 antagonism in type 1 diabetes of recent onset: two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Interleukin-1 antagonism in type 1 diabetes of recent onset: two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets