Challenges in multinational rare disease clinical studies during COVID-19: regulatory assessment of cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat in adults with late-onset Pompe disease.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Neurology Pub Date : 2025-01-07 DOI:10.1007/s00415-024-12843-x
Benedikt Schoser, Shahram Attarian, Ryan Graham, Fred Holdbrook, Mitchell Goldman, Jordi Díaz-Manera
{"title":"Challenges in multinational rare disease clinical studies during COVID-19: regulatory assessment of cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat in adults with late-onset Pompe disease.","authors":"Benedikt Schoser, Shahram Attarian, Ryan Graham, Fred Holdbrook, Mitchell Goldman, Jordi Díaz-Manera","doi":"10.1007/s00415-024-12843-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PROPEL (ATB200-03; NCT03729362) compared the efficacy and safety of cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat (cipa + mig), a two-component therapy for late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD), versus alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (alg + pbo). The primary endpoint was change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) from baseline to week 52. During PROPEL, COVID-19 interrupted some planned study visits and assessment windows, leading to delayed visits, make-up assessments for patients who missed ≥ 3 successive infusions before planned assessments at weeks 38 and 52, and some advanced visits (end-of-study/early-termination visits). These were remapped to the respective planned visits. To evaluate if remapping may have overestimated treatment effects, we conducted post hoc analyses using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures based on actual time points of assessments. In this post hoc analysis, estimated mean treatment difference between cipa + mig and alg + pbo for change from baseline to week 52 in 6MWD was 11.7 m (95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.0 to 24.4; p = 0.072). In the original published analyses, between-group difference using last observation carried forward was 13.6 m (95% CI - 2.8 to 29.9; p = 0.071 [p value from separate non-parametric analysis of covariance]). Both statistical analysis approaches led to similar results and consistent conclusions, confirming the efficacy of cipa + mig for adults with LOPD. NCT03729362; trial start date: December 4, 2018.Trial registration number.</p>","PeriodicalId":16558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology","volume":"272 1","pages":"103"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11706903/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-024-12843-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PROPEL (ATB200-03; NCT03729362) compared the efficacy and safety of cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat (cipa + mig), a two-component therapy for late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD), versus alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (alg + pbo). The primary endpoint was change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) from baseline to week 52. During PROPEL, COVID-19 interrupted some planned study visits and assessment windows, leading to delayed visits, make-up assessments for patients who missed ≥ 3 successive infusions before planned assessments at weeks 38 and 52, and some advanced visits (end-of-study/early-termination visits). These were remapped to the respective planned visits. To evaluate if remapping may have overestimated treatment effects, we conducted post hoc analyses using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures based on actual time points of assessments. In this post hoc analysis, estimated mean treatment difference between cipa + mig and alg + pbo for change from baseline to week 52 in 6MWD was 11.7 m (95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.0 to 24.4; p = 0.072). In the original published analyses, between-group difference using last observation carried forward was 13.6 m (95% CI - 2.8 to 29.9; p = 0.071 [p value from separate non-parametric analysis of covariance]). Both statistical analysis approaches led to similar results and consistent conclusions, confirming the efficacy of cipa + mig for adults with LOPD. NCT03729362; trial start date: December 4, 2018.Trial registration number.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neurology
Journal of Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
558
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurology is an international peer-reviewed journal which provides a source for publishing original communications and reviews on clinical neurology covering the whole field. In addition, Letters to the Editors serve as a forum for clinical cases and the exchange of ideas which highlight important new findings. A section on Neurological progress serves to summarise the major findings in certain fields of neurology. Commentaries on new developments in clinical neuroscience, which may be commissioned or submitted, are published as editorials. Every neurologist interested in the current diagnosis and treatment of neurological disorders needs access to the information contained in this valuable journal.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Jean Aicardi (1926-2015). Correction: Repeated cognitive assessments show stable function over time in patients with ALS. Sustained quality-of-life improvements over 10 years after subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for isolated dystonia. Challenges in multinational rare disease clinical studies during COVID-19: regulatory assessment of cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat in adults with late-onset Pompe disease. Clinical features, mutation spectrum and factors related to reaching molecular diagnosis in a cohort of patients with distal myopathies.
×
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