Zilucoplan in immune-mediated necrotising myopathy: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND: Immune-mediated necrotising myopathy is an autoimmune myopathy characterised by proximal muscle weakness, high creatine kinase concentrations, and autoantibodies recognising 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase (HMGCR) or the signal recognition particle (SRP). No approved therapies exist for people with immune-mediated necrotising myopathy. Previous studies have suggested that complement activation might be pathogenic in immune-mediated necrotising myopathy; therefore, zilucoplan, a complement C5 (C5) inhibitor, could be a potential therapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zilucoplan in adult participants with anti-HMGCR or anti-SRP autoantibody-positive immune-mediated necrotising myopathy. METHODS: IMNM-01 was a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study done at 15 hospital sites across the USA, the UK, France, and the Netherlands. Participants aged 18–74 years were eligible for inclusion if they had a clinically confirmed diagnosis of immune-mediated necrotising myopathy, positive serology for anti-HMGCR or anti-SRP autoantibodies, clinical evidence of weakness, serum total creatine kinase concentration of more than 1000 U/L at screening, and no change in glucocorticoids or other immunosuppressive therapies for 30 days before baseline or expected during the first 8 weeks of the study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive daily subcutaneous zilucoplan (0·3 mg/kg) or placebo for 8 weeks by use of a computerised randomisation algorithm; with optional enrolment in the study open-label extension. Randomisation was stratified by autoantibody status. Participants and study staff were masked to treatment group assignment. Primary efficacy endpoint (in the intent-to-treat population, defined as all participants who were randomly assigned to a treatment group) was percent change from baseline to week 8 in creatine kinase concentrations. Safety analyses were performed on the safety population (participants who received at least one dose of study drug during the main study, irrespective of whether they continued to the extension period—study participants were analysed on the basis of the treatment received). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04025632. FINDINGS: Between Nov 7, 2019, and Jan 7, 2021, we randomly assigned 27 participants (13 female and 14 male) to receive zilucoplan (n=12) or placebo (n=15). All 27 participants completed the 8-week main study. At week 8 there were no significant differences between treatment groups in median percent change of creatine kinase concentrations versus baseline (–15·1% [IQR –31·1 to 3·2] in the zilucoplan group vs –16·3% [–43·8 to 5·9] in the placebo group; p=0·46) and no clinically relevant improvement over time within the treatment group despite target engagement based on mode of action. There were no unexpected adverse safety or tolerability findings. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in nine (75%) of 12 participants in the zilucoplan group, and in 13 (87%) of 15 participants in the placebo group, and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in zero participants in the zilucoplan group and three (20%) participants in the placebo group. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events were headache (four [33%] participants in the zilucoplan group and four [27%] participants in the placebo group) and nausea (three [25%] participants in the zilucoplan group and three [20%] participants in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: C5 inhibition does not appear to be an efficacious treatment modality for people with immune-mediated necrotising myopathy. Rather than being the primary driver for disease activity, complement activation might be secondary to muscle injury. FUNDING: Ra Pharmaceuticals (now part of UCB Pharma)

Carotid Body Tumors and Our Surgical Approaches

Glomus tumors known as paragangliomas are neoplasms arising from the neural crest. They are named according to the place they originate from. Tumors originating from the carotid body at the carotid bifurcation are called Carotid Body Tumors (CBT). Surgical intervention is planned according to the Shamblin classification. 17 patients were operated after being diagnosed with CBT in our clinic between February 2007 and June 2010. 12 (70.5%) of the patients were male, and 5 (29.4%) of the patients were female. The average age was 42 (ages ranging between 32 and 47). Nine of the patients were diagnosed and treated with Shamblin type I tumor, seven of the patients with type II and one patient with type III. Only one patient had bilateral carotid tumor. In all patients with Shamblin type I and II, blunt dissection of the tumor was conducted smoothly by means of thermal cautery in the subadventitial plane. The patient with Shamblin type III had tumor invasion in the carotid artery and adjacent tissues were in an adherent state. Therefore mass resection was carried out by resecting 2 cm of the distal portion of the common carotid artery and 3 cm of the proximal portion of the internal carotid artery. 6 mm of synthetic polytetrafluoroethylene graft was interpositioned between the common carotid artery and the internal carotid artery. External carotid artery was anastomosed to this graft in an end-to-end fashion. The patient developed vocal cord paralysis postoperatively on the lesion side. The patient who underwent bilateral tumor excision developed Baroreflex Failure Syndrome. In the two patients thrombus developed in the internal carotid artery in the early postoperative period. These patients underwent thrombectomy and developed hemiplegia on the lesion side. One of them died on the seventh post-operative day while in follow-up in the intensive care unit. Surgical resection is the recommended treatment for carotid body tumors. Shamblin I and II type tumors’ dimensions and pathological characteristics allow dissection. However Shamblin III tumors may require carotid artery resection and reconstruction due to tissue invasion. The possibility of post-operative cranial nerve paralysis and arterial thrombosis should be taken into account

Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS): Bayesian Adaptive Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial

© 2020 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Importance: Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) is a common generalized slowly progressive neuropathy, second in prevalence only to diabetic neuropathy. Most patients with CSPN have significant pain. Many medications have been tried for pain reduction in CSPN, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, and sodium channel blockers. There are no comparative studies that identify the most effective medication for pain reduction in CSPN. Objective: To determine which medication (pregabalin, duloxetine, nortriptyline, or mexiletine) is most effective for reducing neuropathic pain and best tolerated in patients with CSPN. Design, Setting, and Participants: From December 1, 2014, through October 20, 2017, a bayesian adaptive, open-label randomized clinical comparative effectiveness study of pain in 402 participants with CSPN was conducted at 40 neurology care clinics. The trial included response adaptive randomization. Participants were patients with CSPN who were 30 years or older, with a pain score of 4 or greater on a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating a higher level of pain). Participant allocation to 1 of 4 drug groups used the utility function and treatment\u27s sample size for response adaptation randomization. At each interim analysis, a decision was made to continue enrolling (up to 400 participants) or stop the whole trial for success (80% power). Patient engagement was maintained throughout the trial, which helped guide the study and identify ways to communicate and disseminate information. Analysis was performed from December 11, 2015, to January 19, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive nortriptyline (n = 134), duloxetine (n = 126), pregabalin (n = 73), or mexiletine (n = 69). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a utility function that was a composite of the efficacy (participant reported pain reduction of ≥50% from baseline to week 12) and quit (participants who discontinued medication) rates. Results: Among the 402 participants (213 men [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [13.4] years; 343 White [85.3%]), the utility function of nortriptyline was 0.81 (95% bayesian credible interval [CrI], 0.69-0.93; 34 of 134 [25.4%] efficacious; and 51 of 134 [38.1%] quit), of duloxetine was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.68-0.92; 29 of 126 [23.0%] efficacious; and 47 of 126 [37.3%] quit), pregabalin was 0.69 (95% CrI, 0.55-0.84; 11 of 73 [15.1%] efficacious; and 31 of 73 [42.5%] quit), and mexiletine was 0.58 (95% CrI, 0.42-0.75; 14 of 69 [20.3%] efficacious; and 40 of 69 [58.0%] quit). The probability each medication yielded the highest utility was 0.52 for nortriptyline, 0.43 for duloxetine, 0.05 for pregabalin, and 0.00 for mexiletine. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, although there was no clearly superior medication, nortriptyline and duloxetine outperformed pregabalin and mexiletine when pain reduction and undesirable adverse effects are combined to a single end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02260388

Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS): Bayesian Adaptive Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial

Importance: Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) is a common generalized slowly progressive neuropathy, second in prevalence only to diabetic neuropathy. Most patients with CSPN have significant pain. Many medications have been tried for pain reduction in CSPN, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, and sodium channel blockers. There are no comparative studies that identify the most effective medication for pain reduction in CSPN. Objective: To determine which medication (pregabalin, duloxetine, nortriptyline, or mexiletine) is most effective for reducing neuropathic pain and best tolerated in patients with CSPN. Design, Setting, and Participants: From December 1, 2014, through October 20, 2017, a bayesian adaptive, open-label randomized clinical comparative effectiveness study of pain in 402 participants with CSPN was conducted at 40 neurology care clinics. The trial included response adaptive randomization. Participants were patients with CSPN who were 30 years or older, with a pain score of 4 or greater on a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating a higher level of pain). Participant allocation to 1 of 4 drug groups used the utility function and treatment\u27s sample size for response adaptation randomization. At each interim analysis, a decision was made to continue enrolling (up to 400 participants) or stop the whole trial for success (80% power). Patient engagement was maintained throughout the trial, which helped guide the study and identify ways to communicate and disseminate information. Analysis was performed from December 11, 2015, to January 19, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive nortriptyline (n = 134), duloxetine (n = 126), pregabalin (n = 73), or mexiletine (n = 69). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a utility function that was a composite of the efficacy (participant reported pain reduction of ≥50% from baseline to week 12) and quit (participants who discontinued medication) rates. Results: Among the 402 participants (213 men [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [13.4] years; 343 White [85.3%]), the utility function of nortriptyline was 0.81 (95% bayesian credible interval [CrI], 0.69-0.93; 34 of 134 [25.4%] efficacious; and 51 of 134 [38.1%] quit), of duloxetine was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.68-0.92; 29 of 126 [23.0%] efficacious; and 47 of 126 [37.3%] quit), pregabalin was 0.69 (95% CrI, 0.55-0.84; 11 of 73 [15.1%] efficacious; and 31 of 73 [42.5%] quit), and mexiletine was 0.58 (95% CrI, 0.42-0.75; 14 of 69 [20.3%] efficacious; and 40 of 69 [58.0%] quit). The probability each medication yielded the highest utility was 0.52 for nortriptyline, 0.43 for duloxetine, 0.05 for pregabalin, and 0.00 for mexiletine. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, although there was no clearly superior medication, nortriptyline and duloxetine outperformed pregabalin and mexiletine when pain reduction and undesirable adverse effects are combined to a single end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02260388