Objective
The authors tested whether the anti-interleukin (IL)-17A monoclonal antibody secukinumab was safe and effective for the treatment of active Crohn’s disease.
Design
In a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept study, 59 patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease (Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≥220 to ≤450) were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to 2×10 mg/kg intravenous secukinumab or placebo. The primary end point, addressed by Bayesian statistics augmented with historical placebo information, was the probability that secukinumab reduces the CDAI by ≥50 points more than placebo at week 6. Ancillary analyses explored associations of 35 candidate genetic polymorphisms and faecal calprotectin response.
Results
59 patients (39 secukinumab, 20 placebo, mean baseline CDAI 307 and 301, respectively) were recruited. 18/59 (31%) patients discontinued prematurely (12/39 (31%) secukinumab, 6/20 (30%) placebo), 10/59 (17%) due to insufficient therapeutic effect (8/39 (21%) secukinumab, 2/20 (10%) placebo). Fourteen serious adverse events occurred in 10 patients (seven secukinumab, three placebo); 20 infections, including four local fungal infections, were seen on secukinumab versus none on placebo. Primary end point analysis estimated <0.1% probability (ΔCDAI (SD) =33.9 (19.7), 95% credible interval −4.9 to 72.9) that secukinumab reduces CDAI by ≥50 points more than placebo. Secondary area under the curve analysis (weeks 4–10) showed a significant difference (mean ΔCDAI=49; 95% CI (2 to 96), p=0.043) in favour of placebo. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that unfavourable responses on secukinumab were driven by patients with elevated inflammatory markers (CRP≥10 mg/l and/or faecal calprotectin≥200 ng/ml; mean ΔCDAI=62; 95% CI (−1 to 125), p=0.054 in favour of placebo). Absence of the minor allele of tumour necrosis factor-like ligand 1A was strongly associated with lack of response measured by baseline-adjusted changes in calprotectin at week 6 (p=0.00035 Bonferroni-corrected).
Conclusions
Blockade of IL-17A was ineffective and higher rates of adverse events were noted compared with placebo.
Clinical trial registration
This trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov with the number NCT01009281.
Background: The treatment of gastroparesis remains unsatisfactory despite prokinetic and anti-emetic drugs. Gastric electrical stimulation has been proposed as a therapeutic option. We have assessed the effect of gastric electrical stimulation on symptoms, medical treatment, body weight and gastric emptying in patients with intractable symptomatic gastroparesis in a non-placebo-controlled study. Methods: In this multicenter study, 38 highly symptomatic patients with drug-refractory gastroparesis were enrolled. Patients first received temporary electrical stimulation using percutaneous electrodes. The 33 responders to temporary stimulation then underwent surgical implantation of a permanent stimulator. Severity of vomiting and nausea was assessed before and after stimulation. Patients were reassessed 3, 6, and 12 months after permanent implantation. Results: With stimulation, 35/38 patients (97%) experienced >80% reduction in vomiting and nausea. This effect persisted throughout the observation period (2.9–15.6 months, 341 patient-months). Gastric emptying did not initially change, but improved in most patients at 12 months. At 1 year, the average weight gain was 5.5% and 9/14 patients initially receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition were able to discontinue it. Conclusion: Electrical stimulation of the stomach has an immediate and potent anti-emetic effect. It offers a safe and effective alternative for patients with intractable symptomatic gastroparesis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.