Teplizumab preserves C-peptide in recent-onset type 1 diabetes: two-year results from the randomized, placebo-controlled Protégé trial.

Protégé was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled 2-year study of three intravenous teplizumab dosing regimens, administered daily for 14 days at baseline and again after 26 weeks, in new-onset type 1 diabetes. We sought to determine efficacy and safety of teplizumab immunotherapy at 2 years and to identify characteristics associated with therapeutic response. Of 516 randomized patients, 513 were treated, and 462 completed 2 years of follow-up. Teplizumab (14-day full-dose) reduced the loss of C-peptide mean area under the curve (AUC), a prespecified secondary end point, at 2 years versus placebo. In analyses of prespecified and post hoc subsets at entry, U.S. residents, patients with C-peptide mean AUC >0.2 nmol/L, those randomized ≤6 weeks after diagnosis, HbA1c <7.5% (58 mmol/mol), insulin use <0.4 units/kg/day, and 8-17 years of age each had greater teplizumab-associated C-peptide preservation than their counterparts. Exogenous insulin needs tended to be reduced versus placebo. Antidrug antibodies developed in some patients, without apparent change in drug efficacy. No new safety or tolerability issues were observed during year 2. In summary, anti-CD3 therapy reduced C-peptide loss 2 years after diagnosis using a tolerable dose.

Teplizumab for treatment of type 1 diabetes (Protégé study): 1-year results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Findings of small studies have suggested that short treatments with anti-CD3 monoclonal antibodies that are mutated to reduce Fc receptor binding preserve ß-cell function and decrease insulin needs in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the safety and efficacy of one such antibody, teplizumab. METHODS: In this 2-year trial, patients aged 8-35 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes for 12 weeks or fewer were enrolled and treated at 83 clinical centres in North America, Europe, Israel, and India. Participants were allocated (2:1:1:1 ratio) by an interactive telephone system, according to computer-generated block randomisation, to receive one of three regimens of teplizumab infusions (14-day full dose, 14-day low dose, or 6-day full dose) or placebo at baseline and at 26 weeks. The Protégé study is still underway, and patients and study staff remain masked through to study closure. The primary composite outcome was the percentage of patients with insulin use of less than 0·5 U/kg per day and glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1C)) of less than 6·5% at 1 year. Analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00385697. FINDINGS: 763 patients were screened, of whom 516 were randomised to receive 14-day full-dose teplizumab (n=209), 14-day low-dose teplizumab (n=102), 6-day full-dose teplizumab (n=106), or placebo (n=99). Two patients in the 14-day full-dose group and one patient in the placebo group did not start treatment, so 513 patients were eligible for efficacy analyses. The primary outcome did not differ between groups at 1 year: 19·8% (41/207) in the 14-day full-dose group; 13·7% (14/102) in the 14-day low-dose group; 20·8% (22/106) in the 6-day full-dose group; and 20·4% (20/98) in the placebo group. 5% (19/415) of patients in the teplizumab groups were not taking insulin at 1 year, compared with no patients in the placebo group at 1 year (p=0·03). Across the four study groups, similar proportions of patients had adverse events (414/417 [99%] in the teplizumab groups vs 98/99 [99%] in the placebo group) and serious adverse events (42/417 [10%] vs 9/99 [9%]). The most common clinical adverse event in the teplizumab groups was rash (220/417 [53%] vs 20/99 [20%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Findings of exploratory analyses suggest that future studies of immunotherapeutic intervention with teplizumab might have increased success in prevention of a decline in ß-cell function (measured by C-peptide) and provision of glycaemic control at reduced doses of insulin if they target patients early after diagnosis of diabetes and children. FUNDING: MacroGenics, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and Eli Lilly.

Evaluation of the accuracy of estimation retinoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Some children are unable to cooperate for retinoscopy because they object strongly to the placement of lenses close to their faces. For these children, it would be ideal to obtain an accurate estimate of refractive error without using lenses. Techniques of estimation retinoscopy include sliding the sleeve of the Copeland retinoscope downward or moving closer to the patient until neutrality is achieved. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of estimation techniques by comparing results to standard retinoscopy with loose lenses in cooperative children. METHODS: A Copeland retinoscope was calibrated using a schematic eye and loose lenses. A scale was created adjacent to the sleeve of the retinoscope which allowed an estimate of refractive error based on the position of the top of the sleeve. Estimation retinoscopy followed by standard retinoscopy with loose lenses was done on 100 eyes of 50 children after cycloplegia. RESULTS: Estimation of spherical equivalent for myopia less than 4 D and hyperopia less than 2 D correlated strongly with results obtained by standard retinoscopy with loose lenses (r = 0.87). Estimation retinoscopy had a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 67%, positive-predictive value of 58%, and negative-predictive value of 92% in the detection of amblyogenic refractive errors. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation retinoscopy has very good accuracy for low levels of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. Techniques of estimation may be useful in excluding amblyogenic refractive errors, particularly in children who object to loose lenses held close to them.

Safety and immunogenicity of palivizumab (Synagis) administered for two seasons.

To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of palivizumab, 55 children who received palivizumab in the IMpact-RSV trial received 5 monthly doses of 15 mg/kg palivizumab (Synagis) during the subsequent year. The single child with an antipalivizumab titer of >1/40 had no associated serious adverse events and had expected serum palivizumab trough concentrations. Second year palivizumab prophylaxis was safe and well-tolerated.

Palivizumab prophylaxis reduces hospitalization due to respiratory syncytial virus in young children with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, tolerance, and efficacy of palivizumab in children with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (CHD). STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 1287 children with CHD randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 5 monthly intramuscular injections of 15 mg/kg palivizumab or placebo. Children were followed for 150 days. The primary efficacy end point was antigen-confirmed respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) hospitalization. RESULTS: Palivizumab recipients had a 45% relative reduction in RSV hospitalizations (P=.003), a 56% reduction in total days of RSV hospitalization per 100 children (P=.003), and a 73% reduction in total RSV hospital days with increased supplemental oxygen per 100 children (P=.014). Adverse events were similar in the treatment groups; no child had drug discontinued for a related adverse event. Serious adverse events occurred in 55.4% of palivizumab recipients and 63.1% of placebo recipients (P<.005); none were related to palivizumab. Twenty-one children (3.3%) in the palivizumab group and 27 (4.2%) in the placebo group died; no deaths were attributed to palivizumab. The rates of cardiac surgeries performed earlier than planned were similar in the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly palivizumab (15 mg/kg IM) was safe, well-tolerated, and effective for prophylaxis of serious RSV disease in young children with hemodynamically significant CHD.