Safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of an IGF-1 mimetic in patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy:a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BackgroundSpinal and bulbar muscular atrophy is an X-linked neuromuscular disease caused by CAG repeat expansion in the androgen receptor gene. Patients with this disease have low concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and studies of overexpression and administration of IGF-1 showed benefit in a transgenic model; thus the IGF-1 pathway presents as a potential treatment target. We assessed safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of BVS857, an IGF-1 mimetic, in patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients from neuromuscular centres in Denmark (Copenhagen), Germany (Ulm), Italy (Padova), and three sites within the USA (Bethesda, MD; Irvine, CA; and Columbus, OH). Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a confirmed genetic diagnosis of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, were ambulatory, had symptomatic weakness, and had serum IGF-1 concentrations of 170 ng/mL or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to study drug or placebo by a number scheme. Patients, investigators, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. After a safety and tolerability assessment with eight patients, BVS857 was administered once a week (0·06 mg/kg intravenously) for 12 weeks. Primary outcome measures were safety, tolerability, and the effects of BVS857 on thigh muscle volume (TMV) measured by MRI. The ratio of TMV at day 85 to baseline was analysed with ANCOVA per protocol. Secondary outcomes of muscle strength and function were measured with the Adult Myopathy Assessment Tool, lean body mass through dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, and BVS857 pharmacokinetics. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02024932.Findings31 patients were assessed for eligibility, 27 of whom were randomly assigned to either BVS857 treatment (n=18) or placebo (n=9), and 24 were included in the preliminary efficacy analysis (BVS857 group, n=15; placebo group, n=9). BVS857 was generally safe with no serious adverse events. No significant differences were found in adverse events between the BVS857 and placebo groups. Immunogenicity was detected in 13 (72%) of 18 patients in the BVS857 group, including crossreacting antibodies with neutralising capacity to endogenous IGF-1 in five patients. TMV decreased from baseline to day 85 in the placebo group (-3·4% [-110 cm3]) but not in the BVS857 group (0% [2 cm3]). A significant difference in change in TMV was observed in the BVS857 group versus the placebo group (geometric-mean ratio 1·04 [90% CI 1·01-1·07]; p=0·02). There were no differences between groups in measures of muscle strength and function.InterpretationTMV remained stable in patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy after being given BVS857 for 12 weeks. The intervention was associated with high incidence of immunogenicity and did not improve muscle strength or function. Additional studies might be needed to assess the efficacy of activating the IGF-1 pathway in this disease.FundingNovartis Pharmaceuticals and the US National Institutes of Health

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