-
Frontiers in Neurology 2021We sought to provide an overview of the published and currently ongoing movement disorders clinical trials employing gene therapy, defined as a technology aiming to...
We sought to provide an overview of the published and currently ongoing movement disorders clinical trials employing gene therapy, defined as a technology aiming to modulate the expression of one or more genes to achieve a therapeutic benefit. We systematically reviewed movement disorders gene therapy clinical trials from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov using a searching strategy that included Parkinson disease (PD), Huntington disease (HD), amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, multiple system atrophy (MSA), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), dystonia, tremor, ataxia, and other movement disorders. Data extracted included study characteristics, investigational product, route of administration, safety/tolerability, motor endpoints, and secondary outcomes (i.e., neuroimaging, biomarkers). We identified a total of 46 studies focusing on PD (21 published and nine ongoing), HD (2 published and 5 ongoing), AADC deficiency (4 published and 2 ongoing), MSA (2 ongoing), and PSP (1 ongoing). In PD, intraparenchymal infusion of viral vector-mediated gene therapies demonstrated to be safe and showed promising preliminary data in trials aiming at restoring the synthesis of dopamine, enhancing the production of neurotrophic factors, or modifying the functional interaction between different nodes of the basal ganglia. In HD, monthly intrathecal delivery of an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) targeting the huntingtin protein (HTT) mRNA proved to be safe and tolerable, and demonstrated a dose-dependent reduction of the cerebrospinal fluid levels of mutated HTT, while a small phase-I study testing implantable capsules of cells engineered to synthesize ciliary neurotrophic factor failed to show consistent drug delivery. In AADC deficiency, gene replacement studies demonstrated to be relatively safe in restoring catecholamine and serotonin synthesis, with promising outcomes. Ongoing movement disorders clinical trials are focusing on a variety of gene therapy approaches including alternative viral vector serotypes, novel recombinant genes, novel delivery techniques, and ASOs for the treatment of HD, MSA, and distinct subtypes of PD (LRRK2 mutation or GBA1 mutation carriers). Initial phase-I and -II studies tested the safety and feasibility of gene therapy in PD, HD, and AADC deficiency. The ongoing generation of clinical trials aims to test the efficacy of these approaches and explore additional applications for gene therapy in movement disorders.
PubMed: 33889127
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.648532 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jun 2022We appreciate Ahmed Sami Aljabali and his colleagues for their interest and comments [...]. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Reply to Aljabali et al. Comment on "Abbas et al. The Safety and Efficacy of Nusinersen in the Treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. 2022, , 213".
We appreciate Ahmed Sami Aljabali and his colleagues for their interest and comments [...].
Topics: Humans; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal; Oligonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35744055
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58060793 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jun 2022We read with interest the article by Abbas et al. [...]. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comment on Abbas et al. The Safety and Efficacy of Nusinersen in the Treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. 2022, , 213.
We read with interest the article by Abbas et al. [...].
Topics: Humans; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal; Oligonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35744029
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58060766 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Child; Chronic Pain; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Fibromyalgia; Gabapentin; Humans; Neuralgia; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28779491
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012536.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in angiogenesis in foetal life. Researchers have recently attempted to use anti-VEGF agents for the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in angiogenesis in foetal life. Researchers have recently attempted to use anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), a vasoproliferative disorder. The safety and efficacy of these agents in preterm infants with ROP is currently uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs when used either as monotherapy, that is without concomitant cryotherapy or laser therapy, or in combination with planned cryo/laser therapy in preterm infants with type 1 ROP (defined as zone I any stage with plus disease, zone I stage 3 with or without plus disease, or zone II stage 2 or 3 with plus disease).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to 11 December 2016), Embase (1980 to 11 December 2016), CINAHL (1982 to 11 December 2016), and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy or safety of administration, or both, of anti-VEGF agents compared with conventional therapy in preterm infants with ROP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal methods for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials involving a total of 383 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five trials compared intravitreal bevacizumab (n = 4) or ranibizumab (n = 1) with conventional laser therapy (monotherapy), while the sixth study compared intravitreal pegaptanib plus conventional laser therapy with laser/cryotherapy (combination therapy).When used as monotherapy, bevacizumab/ranibizumab did not reduce the risk of complete or partial retinal detachment (3 studies; 272 infants; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 5.13; risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04; very low-quality evidence), mortality before discharge (2 studies; 229 infants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.75), corneal opacity requiring corneal transplant (1 study; 286 eyes; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.26), or lens opacity requiring cataract removal (3 studies; 544 eyes; RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79). The risk of recurrence of ROP requiring retreatment also did not differ between groups (2 studies; 193 infants; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.63; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.07; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence in infants with zone I ROP (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.62), but an increased risk of recurrence in infants with zone II ROP (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.32). Pooled analysis of studies that reported eye-level outcomes also revealed significant increase in the risk of recurrence of ROP in the eyes that received bevacizumab (RR 5.36, 95% CI 1.22 to 23.50; RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17). Infants who received intravitreal bevacizumab had a significantly lower risk of refractive errors (very high myopia) at 30 months of age (1 study; 211 eyes; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.20; RD -0.40, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.30; low-quality evidence).When used in combination with laser therapy, intravitreal pegaptanib was found to reduce the risk of retinal detachment when compared to laser/cryotherapy alone (152 eyes; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.55; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.16; low-quality evidence). The incidence of recurrence of ROP by 55 weeks' postmenstrual age was also lower in the pegaptanib + laser therapy group (76 infants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; RD -0.35, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.16; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the risk of perioperative retinal haemorrhages between the two groups (152 eyes; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.56; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; very low-quality evidence). However, the risk of delayed systemic adverse effects with any of the three anti-VEGF drugs is not known.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Implications for practice: Intravitreal bevacizumab/ranibizumab, when used as monotherapy, reduces the risk of refractive errors during childhood but does not reduce the risk of retinal detachment or recurrence of ROP in infants with type 1 ROP. While the intervention might reduce the risk of recurrence of ROP in infants with zone I ROP, it can potentially result in higher risk of recurrence requiring retreatment in those with zone II ROP. Intravitreal pegaptanib, when used in conjunction with laser therapy, reduces the risk of retinal detachment as well as the recurrence of ROP in infants with type 1 ROP. However, the quality of the evidence was very low to low for most outcomes due to risk of detection bias and other biases. The effects on other critical outcomes and, more importantly, the long-term systemic adverse effects of the drugs are not known. Insufficient data precludes strong conclusions favouring routine use of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents - either as monotherapy or in conjunction with laser therapy - in preterm infants with type 1 ROP.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of anti-VEGF agents on structural and functional outcomes in childhood and delayed systemic effects including adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Combined Modality Therapy; Cryotherapy; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intravitreal Injections; Laser Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Retinal Detachment; Retinopathy of Prematurity; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 29308602
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009734.pub3 -
BMJ Open Dec 2018To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and corticosteroids for the treatment of macular oedema (ME) secondary to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and corticosteroids for the treatment of macular oedema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients from previously reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF and corticosteroids for the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO.
METHODS
Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until March 2017. Therapeutic effects were estimated using the proportions of patients gaining/losing ≥15 letters, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Treatment safety was estimated using the proportions of adverse events, namely increased intraocular pressure (IOP), cataracts, vitreous haemorrhage (VH) and retinal tear. The software ADDIS (V.1.16.8) was used for analysis. Treatment effect and safety of different drugs could be ranked based on simulation.
RESULTS
Eleven RCTs comprising 2060 patients were identified. Regarding patients gaining ≥15 letters, aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly more effective than sham/placebo at 6 months. Regarding patients losing ≥15 letters at 6 months, ranibizumab showed significant improvement compared with dexamethasone. Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab showed greater improvements in BCVA than sham/placebo at 6 months. Intravitreal ranibizumab injection demonstrated greater CRT reduction than both sham and dexamethasone did. Dexamethasone had a higher risk of increased IOP than aflibercept and ranibizumab. Ranibizumab demonstrated a greater risk of cataracts than dexamethasone. Aflibercept and ranibizumab demonstrated low incidence of VH and retinal tear, respectively. Aflibercept had a slight advantage over ranibizumab as assessed by benefit-risk analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGF agents have advantages in the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO. Aflibercept and ranibizumab showed marked BCVA improvement and CRT reduction. Aflibercept may have a slight advantage over ranibizumab. The results of this study can serve as a reference for clinicians to provide patient-tailored treatment.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017064076.
Topics: Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Dexamethasone; Intraocular Pressure; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 30593547
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022700 -
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2021Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a heterogeneous degenerative brain disorder with a rising prevalence worldwide. The two hallmarks that characterize the AD pathophysiology... (Review)
Review
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a heterogeneous degenerative brain disorder with a rising prevalence worldwide. The two hallmarks that characterize the AD pathophysiology are amyloid plaques, generated via aggregated amyloid β, and neurofibrillary tangle, generated via accumulated phosphorylated tau. At the post-transcriptional and transcriptional levels, the regulatory functions of non-coding RNAs, in particular long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), have been ascertained in gene expressions. It is noteworthy that a number of lncRNAs feature a prevalent role in their potential of regulating gene expression through modulation of microRNAs via a process called the mechanism of competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA). Given the multifactorial nature of ceRNA interaction networks, they might be advantageous in complex disorders (e.g., AD) investigations at the therapeutic targets level. We carried out scoping review in this research to analyze validated loops of ceRNA in AD and focus on ceRNA axes associated with lncRNA. This scoping review was performed according to a six-stage methodology structure and PRISMA guideline. A systematic search of seven databases was conducted to find eligible articles prior to July 2021. Two reviewers independently performed publications screening and data extraction, and quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Fourteen articles were identified that fulfill the inclusion criteria. Studies with different designs reported nine lncRNAs that were experimentally validated to act as ceRNA in AD in human-related studies, including , , , , , , , , and . The / was the most frequent ceRNA pair. Among miRNAs, played a key role by regulating three different loops. Understanding the various aspects of this regulatory mechanism can help elucidate the unknown etiology of AD and provide new molecular targets for use in therapeutic and clinical applications.
PubMed: 34899268
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.742242 -
JAMA Network Open Apr 2021A thorough understanding of the optimal role and sequence of agents for treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) requires knowledge of the use and rate of postprotocol...
IMPORTANCE
A thorough understanding of the optimal role and sequence of agents for treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) requires knowledge of the use and rate of postprotocol therapies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To examine the proportion of MM RCTs that reported postprotocol therapies and, among those, the percentage of patients who received no further therapy and how treatments differed between the control and intervention arms.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
The reporting of postprotocol therapies was systematically assessed in published MM RCTs using 3 databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials) for MM RCTs from January 1, 2005, to December 30, 2019. All MM RCTs were included, and all other studies, such as editorials, nonrandomized studies, and review articles, were excluded.
FINDINGS
A total of 103 RCTs were identified (47 251 patients); of these, 45 (43.7%) reported subsequent treatments in that publication or in any subsequent publication. Trials funded by pharmaceutical companies (26 of 47 [55.3%]) were more likely to report subsequent treatments than cooperative group studies (19 of 56 [33.9%]) (χ21,103 = 4.8; P = .03). Differences were found in the treatments received between the intervention and control arms of RCTs. When data were reported, 5150 of 9351 patients (54.9%) in RCTs of newly diagnosed MM and 2197 of 4501 patients (48.8%) in RCTs of relapsed/refractory MM received any subsequent therapy.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Postprotocol therapies in MM RCTs are often not reported and, when they are, many patients receive no further therapy. Reporting guidelines for postprotocol therapies are needed.
Topics: Aftercare; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Oligonucleotides; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Standard of Care
PubMed: 33909053
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.8084 -
Surgical Infections 2018Conventional antibiotic agents are overused, leading to decreased efficacy because of a rising incidence in antimicrobial resistance. Further, conventional antibiotic...
Conventional antibiotic agents are overused, leading to decreased efficacy because of a rising incidence in antimicrobial resistance. Further, conventional antibiotic agents result in widespread effects to human microbiota, which can lead directly to adverse events such as infection. This review provides a narrative summary of anti-sense therapies, an approach to managing bacterial infections by pursuing specific molecular targets that disrupt the flow of information from deoxyribonucleic acid to ribonucleic acid to protein, leading to the loss of bacterial functions. Included in this article is the rationale for this approach, the current data supporting its further investigation, and the challenges and future directions in this area of research. There is a compelling proof-of-concept against both gram-positive and gram-negative organisms to commend the use of modified anti-sense oligonucleotides as antimicrobial therapy. There are data demonstrating that anti-sense therapies are capable of killing bacteria, silencing antimicrobial resistance mechanisms to restore sensitivity to conventional antibiotic agents, and to target virulence pathways such as biofilm production. Further, these drugs have a significantly greater degree of organismal specificity, limiting antibiotic-associated diarrhea and lowering the risk of antibiotic-related infections such as infection. Anti-sense therapies show promise as a new class of antibiotic agents, providing molecular precision that leads to specific targeting of bacterial species and bacterial functions, including virulence mechanisms beyond the reach of current antibiotic agents. Further, changing the sequence of an anti-sense oligonucleotide provides a method of dealing with antimicrobial resistance that is more time- and cost-flexible than the available options with current conventional antibiotic agents.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Biomedical Research; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Oligonucleotides, Antisense
PubMed: 30256744
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2018.200 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. By definition, children with SMA type I are never able to sit without support and usually die or become ventilator dependent before the age of two years. There have until very recently been no drug treatments to influence the course of SMA. We undertook this updated review to evaluate new evidence on emerging treatments for SMA type I. The review was first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of any drug therapy designed to slow or arrest progression of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type I.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. We also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials (October 2018).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA type I. Included participants had to fulfil clinical criteria and have a genetically confirmed deletion or mutation of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2). The primary outcome measure was age at death or full-time ventilation. Secondary outcome measures were acquisition of motor milestones, i.e. head control, rolling, sitting or standing, motor milestone response on disability scores within one year after the onset of treatment, and adverse events and serious adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1 gene replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two RCTs: one trial of intrathecal nusinersen in comparison to a sham (control) procedure in 121 randomised infants with SMA type I, which was newly included at this update, and one small trial comparing riluzole treatment to placebo in 10 children with SMA type I. The RCT of intrathecally-injected nusinersen was stopped early for efficacy (based on a predefined Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination-Section 2 (HINE-2) response). At the interim analyses after 183 days of treatment, 41% (21/51) of nusinersen-treated infants showed a predefined improvement on HINE-2, compared to 0% (0/27) of participants in the control group. This trial was largely at low risk of bias. Final analyses (ranging from 6 months to 13 months of treatment), showed that fewer participants died or required full-time ventilation (defined as more than 16 hours daily for 21 days or more) in the nusinersen-treated group than the control group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.89; N = 121; a 47% lower risk; moderate-certainty evidence). A proportion of infants in the nusinersen group and none of 37 infants in the control group achieved motor milestones: 37/73 nusinersen-treated infants (51%) achieved a motor milestone response on HINE-2 (risk ratio (RR) 38.51, 95% CI 2.43 to 610.14; N = 110; moderate-certainty evidence); 16/73 achieved head control (RR 16.95, 95% CI 1.04 to 274.84; moderate-certainty evidence); 6/73 achieved independent sitting (RR 6.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 115.38; moderate-certainty evidence); 7/73 achieved rolling over (RR 7.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 131.29); and 1/73 achieved standing (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.92; moderate-certainty evidence). Seventy-one per cent of nusinersen-treated infants versus 3% of infants in the control group were responders on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) measure of motor disability (RR 26.36, 95% CI 3.79 to 183.18; N = 110; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in the majority of infants but were no more frequent in the nusinersen-treated group than the control group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05 and RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89, respectively; N = 121; moderate-certainty evidence). In the riluzole trial, three of seven children treated with riluzole were still alive at the ages of 30, 48, and 64 months, whereas all three children in the placebo group died. None of the children in the riluzole or placebo group developed the ability to sit, which was the only milestone reported. There were no adverse effects. The certainty of the evidence for all measured outcomes from this study was very low, because the study was too small to detect or rule out an effect, and had serious limitations, including baseline differences. This trial was stopped prematurely because the pharmaceutical company withdrew funding. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen, such as SMN2 augmentation by small molecules, are ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the very limited evidence currently available regarding drug treatments for SMA type 1, intrathecal nusinersen probably prolongs ventilation-free and overall survival in infants with SMA type I. It is also probable that a greater proportion of infants treated with nusinersen than with a sham procedure achieve motor milestones and can be classed as responders to treatment on clinical assessments (HINE-2 and CHOP INTEND). The proportion of children experiencing adverse events and serious adverse events on nusinersen is no higher with nusinersen treatment than with a sham procedure, based on evidence of moderate certainty. It is uncertain whether riluzole has any effect in patients with SMA type I, based on the limited available evidence. Future trials could provide more high-certainty, longer-term evidence to confirm this result, or focus on comparing new treatments to nusinersen or evaluate them as an add-on therapy to nusinersen.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Neuroprotective Agents; Oligonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood
PubMed: 31825542
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006281.pub5