Efficacy and Safety of Vamorolone vs Placebo and Prednisone Among Boys With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Corticosteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely prescribed but long-term use shows adverse effects that detract from patient quality of life.OBJECTIVE To determine if vamorolone, a structurally unique dissociative steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is able to retain efficacy while reducing safety concerns with use in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, double-blind, placebo- and prednisone-controlled 24-week clinical trial, conducted from June 29, 2018, to February 24, 2021, with 24 weeks of follow-up. This was a multicenter study (33 referral centers in 11 countries) and included boys 4 to younger than 7 years of age with genetically confirmed DMD not previously treated with corticosteroids.INTERVENTIONS The study included 4 groups: placebo; prednisone, 0.75 mg/kg per day; vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day; and vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Study outcomes monitored (1) efficacy, which included motor outcomes (primary: time to stand from supine velocity in the vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, group vs placebo; secondary: time to stand from supine velocity [vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day], 6-minute walk distance, time to run/walk 10 m [vamorolone, 2 and 6 mg/kg per day]; exploratory: NorthStar Ambulatory Assessment, time to dimb 4 stairs) and (2) safety, which included growth, bone biomarkers, and a corticotropin (ACTH)-challenge test.RESULTS Among the 133 boys with DMD enrolled in the study (mean [SD] age, 5.4 [0.9] years), 121were randomly assigned to treatment groups, and 114 completed the 24-week treatment period. The trial met the primary end point for change from baseline to week 24 time to stand velocity for vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day (least-squares mean [SE] velocity. 0.05 [0.01] m/s vs placebo -0.01 [0.01] m/s; 95% CI, 0.02-0.10; P = .002) and the first 4 sequential secondary end points: time to stand velocity, vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day, vs placebo; 6-minute walk test, vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, vs placebo; 6-minute walk test. vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day, vs placebo; and time to run/walk 10 m velocity, vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, vs placebo. Height percentile declined in prednisone-treated (not vamorolone-treated) participants (change from baseline [SD]: prednisone, -1.88 [8.81] percentile vs vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, +3.86 [6.16] percentile; P = .02). Bone turnover markers declined with prednisone but not with vamorolone. Boys with DMD at baseline showed low ACTH-stimulated cortisol and high incidence of adrenal insufficiency. All 3 treatment groups led to increased adrenal insufficiency.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE in this pivotal randomized clinical trial, vamorolone was shown to be effective and safe in the treatment of boys with DMD over a 24-week treatment period. Vamorolone may be a safer alternative than prednisone in this disease, in which long-term corticosteroid use is the standard of care.Neurological Motor Disorder

Risdiplam in Patients Previously Treated with Other Therapies for Spinal Muscular Atrophy: An Interim Analysis from the JEWELFISH Study

Introduction: Risdiplam is a survival of motor neuron 2 (SMN2) splicing modifier for the treatment of patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The JEWELFISH study (NCT03032172) was designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of risdiplam in previously treated pediatric and adult patients with types 1–3 SMA. Here, an analysis was performed after all patients had received at least 1 year of treatment with risdiplam. Methods: Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of 5q-autosomal recessive SMA between the ages of 6 months and 60 years were eligible for enrollment. Patients were previously enrolled in the MOONFISH study (NCT02240355) with splicing modifier RG7800 or treated with olesoxime, nusinersen, or onasemnogene abeparvovec. The primary objectives of the JEWELFISH study were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of risdiplam and investigate the PK after 2 years of treatment. Results: A total of 174 patients enrolled: MOONFISH study (n = 13), olesoxime (n = 71 patients), nusinersen (n = 76), onasemnogene abeparvovec (n = 14). Most patients (78%) had three SMN2 copies. The median age and weight of patients at enrollment was 14.0 years (1–60 years) and 39.1 kg (9.2–108.9 kg), respectively. About 63% of patients aged 2–60 years had a baseline total score of less than 10 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale–Expanded and 83% had scoliosis. The most common adverse event (AE) was upper respiratory tract infection and pyrexia (30 patients each; 17%). Pneumonia (four patients; 2%) was the most frequently reported serious AE (SAE). The rates of AEs and SAEs per 100 patient-years were lower in the second 6-month period compared with the first. An increase in SMN protein was observed in blood after risdiplam treatment and was comparable across all ages and body weight quartiles. Conclusions: The safety and PD of risdiplam in patients who were previously treated were consistent with those of treatment-naïve patients