Maintenance of zilucoplan efficacy in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis up to 24 weeks: a model-informed analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders Pub Date : 2024-09-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17562864241279125
Guillemette de la Borderie, Damien Chimits, Babak Boroojerdi, Melissa Brock, Petra W Duda, Fiona Grimson, Paul Mahoney, Foteini Strimenopoulou, Gary Cutter, Inmaculada Aban, Susanna Brauner, Malin Petersson, James F Howard, Nathan Bennett
{"title":"Maintenance of zilucoplan efficacy in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis up to 24 weeks: a model-informed analysis.","authors":"Guillemette de la Borderie, Damien Chimits, Babak Boroojerdi, Melissa Brock, Petra W Duda, Fiona Grimson, Paul Mahoney, Foteini Strimenopoulou, Gary Cutter, Inmaculada Aban, Susanna Brauner, Malin Petersson, James F Howard, Nathan Bennett","doi":"10.1177/17562864241279125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical efficacy of zilucoplan has been demonstrated in a 12-week, placebo-controlled, phase III study in patients with acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG). However, placebo-controlled zilucoplan data past 12 weeks are not available.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Predict the treatment effect of zilucoplan versus control (placebo or standard of care) in patients with gMG up to 24 weeks.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A model-informed analysis (MIA) within a Bayesian framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Part 1 of the MIA comprised a control meta-regression using aggregate data on control response over time from randomised studies and a national myasthenia gravis (MG) registry. In Part 2, a combined Bayesian analysis of individual patient-level data from the phase II (NCT03315130), RAISE (NCT04115293) and RAISE-XT (NCT04225871) studies of zilucoplan was conducted using posterior distributions from Part 1 as informative priors. Population mean treatment effect in the change from baseline (CFB) at week 24 in MG-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and quantitative MG (QMG) scores for zilucoplan versus control were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At week 24, the predicted mean CFB in MG-ADL score was -4.55 (95% credible interval: -6.04, -3.13) with zilucoplan versus -2.00 (-3.35, -0.64) with control (difference: -2.55 [-3.76, -1.40]). The probability of a favourable treatment effect as measured by MG-ADL score at week 24 with zilucoplan versus control was >99.9%. There was an 82.8% probability that the difference in the predicted mean CFB in MG-ADL score at week 24 was greater than the clinically meaningful threshold (⩾2.0-point improvement). Comparable results were observed with QMG.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This MIA demonstrates the maintenance of efficacy with zilucoplan versus control up to 24 weeks. Through combining real-world evidence with data from randomised studies, this novel method to estimate long-term treatment efficacy facilitated reduced exposure to placebo in the phase III RAISE study. This methodology could be used to reduce the length of future placebo-controlled studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":22980,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders","volume":"17 ","pages":"17562864241279125"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418339/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562864241279125","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical efficacy of zilucoplan has been demonstrated in a 12-week, placebo-controlled, phase III study in patients with acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG). However, placebo-controlled zilucoplan data past 12 weeks are not available.

Objectives: Predict the treatment effect of zilucoplan versus control (placebo or standard of care) in patients with gMG up to 24 weeks.

Design: A model-informed analysis (MIA) within a Bayesian framework.

Methods: Part 1 of the MIA comprised a control meta-regression using aggregate data on control response over time from randomised studies and a national myasthenia gravis (MG) registry. In Part 2, a combined Bayesian analysis of individual patient-level data from the phase II (NCT03315130), RAISE (NCT04115293) and RAISE-XT (NCT04225871) studies of zilucoplan was conducted using posterior distributions from Part 1 as informative priors. Population mean treatment effect in the change from baseline (CFB) at week 24 in MG-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and quantitative MG (QMG) scores for zilucoplan versus control were assessed.

Results: At week 24, the predicted mean CFB in MG-ADL score was -4.55 (95% credible interval: -6.04, -3.13) with zilucoplan versus -2.00 (-3.35, -0.64) with control (difference: -2.55 [-3.76, -1.40]). The probability of a favourable treatment effect as measured by MG-ADL score at week 24 with zilucoplan versus control was >99.9%. There was an 82.8% probability that the difference in the predicted mean CFB in MG-ADL score at week 24 was greater than the clinically meaningful threshold (⩾2.0-point improvement). Comparable results were observed with QMG.

Conclusion: This MIA demonstrates the maintenance of efficacy with zilucoplan versus control up to 24 weeks. Through combining real-world evidence with data from randomised studies, this novel method to estimate long-term treatment efficacy facilitated reduced exposure to placebo in the phase III RAISE study. This methodology could be used to reduce the length of future placebo-controlled studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
维持齐鲁霉素对全身性肌无力患者的疗效长达 24 周:一项基于模型的分析。
背景:在一项为期 12 周、安慰剂对照的 III 期研究中,乙酰胆碱受体自身抗体阳性的全身性重症肌无力(gMG)患者证实了齐鲁克兰的临床疗效。然而,目前还没有超过12周的安慰剂对照齐鲁克仑数据:目标:预测齐鲁可平与对照组(安慰剂或标准护理)对重症肌无力患者长达24周的治疗效果:设计:在贝叶斯框架内进行模型信息分析(MIA):MIA的第一部分包括对照组元回归,使用的是随机研究和全国重症肌无力(MG)登记处提供的对照组反应随时间变化的综合数据。在第2部分中,利用第1部分的后验分布作为信息先验,对来自齐鲁霉素II期(NCT03315130)、RAISE(NCT04115293)和RAISE-XT(NCT04225871)研究的单个患者水平数据进行了贝叶斯综合分析。评估了第24周时齐鲁霉素与对照组相比在MG-日常生活活动(MG-ADL)和定量MG(QMG)评分方面从基线(CFB)变化的人群平均治疗效果:结果:第24周时,使用齐鲁可平的MG-ADL评分预测平均CFB为-4.55(95%可信区间:-6.04,-3.13),而对照组为-2.00(-3.35,-0.64)(差异:-2.55 [-3.76,-1.40])。根据第 24 周时的 MG-ADL 评分来衡量,使用齐鲁咯烷与对照组相比,取得良好治疗效果的概率大于 99.9%。第 24 周时 MG-ADL 评分的预测平均 CFB 差异大于有临床意义阈值(⩾2.0 分的改善)的概率为 82.8%。QMG也观察到了类似的结果:该 MIA 表明,与对照组相比,齐鲁霉素可维持疗效长达 24 周。通过将真实世界的证据与随机研究的数据相结合,这种估算长期疗效的新方法有助于减少III期RAISE研究中的安慰剂暴露。这种方法可用于缩短未来安慰剂对照研究的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.70%
发文量
62
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders is a peer-reviewed, open access journal delivering the highest quality articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of neurology. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in neurology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area.
期刊最新文献
Chronic active lesions in multiple sclerosis: classification, terminology, and clinical significance. Early infarct growth rate is associated with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular thrombectomy. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab treatment in refractory MOG-IgG related optic neuritis. Patient flow analysis with fast-track MRI for suspected stroke in the emergency department and associated non-comprehensive stroke center. A rare association of Guillain-Barré syndrome/Miller-Fisher syndrome overlap syndrome and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 infection: trigger or exacerbating factor?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1