MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2950101483 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.12803

Second‐Generation Antisense Nucleotide Targeting Huntingtin Expression Found to Be Safe in Patients With Huntington's Disease

2019· article· en· W2950101483 sur OpenAlexaff
Alex Medina Escobar, Verónica Bruno, Justyna R. Sarna

Notice bibliographique

RevueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHuntingtinMedicineHuntington's diseaseHuntingtin ProteinTrinucleotide repeat expansionInternal medicineClinical endpointDiseasePolyglutamine tractChoreaPharmacologyOncologyClinical trialGeneticsBiologyGeneAllele

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Tabrizi, SJ, Leavitt, BR, Landwehrmeyer, GB, et al. Targeting huntingtin expression in patients with Huntington's disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 2307– 2316. Huntington's disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative autosomal-dominant disorder caused by CAG trinucleotide repeat expansion in the huntingtin gene (HTT). HD is characterized by progressive neuropsychiatric, cognitive, and motor symptoms and is the most common cause of inherited chorea. Even though the HTT gene was identified more than one-quarter of a century ago, there are no disease-modifying therapies that prevent disease onset or slow its progression.1 Recent research efforts have focused on directly targeting the genetic abnormality. Recently, Tabrizi and colleagues have studied the effects of intrathecal administration of a second-generation antisense nucleotide, to inhibit messenger RNA, and therefore reduce huntingtin concentration levels.2 Earlier research demonstrated that decreasing the levels of HTT in transgenic animal models and nonhuman primates with HTT-lowering agents was feasible and safe.3 Forty-six eligible patients between 25 and 65 years of age with early HD, further defined as having ≥36 CAG repeats and a clinical stage 1, were randomized (3:1) into five different dose groups (10, 30, 60, 90, or 120 mg) in an ascending dose design to receive four intrathecal boluses at 4-week intervals of IONIS-HTTRx versus placebo. The primary endpoint was to evaluate safety of the drug. Secondary endpoints included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pharmacokinetics as well as plasma pharmacodynamics in addition to identifying its effect on concentration levels of HTT, neurofilament light protein in the CSF, ventricular volume, and the composite cognitive score on the Huntington's Disease Cognitive Assessment Battery. IONIS-HTTRx was found to be safe. Adverse events in both treatment and placebo groups were frequent (reported in 98% of patients), but were mild or moderate and deemed unrelated to direct effects of the drug. The most frequent adverse events were related to the intrathecal administration, including discomfort associated with the lumbar puncture as well as, postdural puncture headache. Serious adverse events were not reported, and no discontinuations or deaths occurred. The concentration of IONIS-HTTRx in the CSF was detectable in patients receiving doses at ≥30 mg and reached a plateau at doses of ≥60 mg with no observed accumulation. Moreover, there was a dose-dependent lowering of mutant HTT levels up to 42% from the baseline. Clinical outcomes remained unchanged, regardless of the dose. Furthermore, no associated adverse events were detected, despite modest increases in ventricular volume, as well as an increase in the neurofilament light protein CSF manifested in some patients who were receiving 90 and 120 mg. The researchers have demonstrated that the drug is safe and well tolerated. There was a dose-dependent reduction in HTT levels in the CSF. Studies currently underway will determine whether this approach results in clinical improvement and alters the disease trajectory. (1) Research Project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; (3) Manuscript: A. Writing of the First Draft, B. Review and Critique. A.M.E.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B V.B.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B J.R.S.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines. The authors confirm that the approval of an institutional review board was not required for this work based on the submission type. The authors report no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest. The authors declare that there are no disclosures to report.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,059
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeMême sujetGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesTravaux en français237 207