Engage: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Multi-center Study To Investigate The Efficacy and Safety Of Eliglustat In Adults With Gaucher Disease Type 1: 9 Month Results
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Gaucher disease type 1 is one of the most common lysosomal storage disorders. Deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme acid-β-glucosidase leads to accumulation of glucosylceramide (GL-1) in the spleen, liver, and bone marrow. Enzyme replacement therapy has been the mainstay of therapy for the last 20 years. Substrate reduction therapy is another treatment approach that inhibits GL-1 synthase and ultimately restores the balance between synthesis and degradation of the substrate. Eliglustat is a novel oral substrate reduction therapy that is currently in development for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1. ENGAGE (NCT00891202) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial sponsored by Genzyme, a Sanofi company investigating the efficacy and safety of eliglustat in untreated adults with Gaucher disease type 1. Method Forty patients (mean age: 31.8 years; 20 males) with splenomegaly and thrombocytopenia and/or anemia were stratified by spleen volume and randomized 1:1 to receive eliglustat (50 or 100 mg BID depending on plasma levels) or placebo for 9 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent change in spleen volume (multiples of normal). Other efficacy measures included hemoglobin, liver volume, and platelets. Bone endpoints included bone marrow burden (BMB) scores and bone mineral density changes (DXA). Quality of life assessments included the Gaucher Disease Severity Scoring System (DS3). Safety monitoring included adverse event reporting, and lab and electrocardiogram evaluations. Results In patients receiving eliglustat vs. placebo, mean spleen volume decreased (-28% vs. +2%, P<0.0001), mean hemoglobin increased (0.69 vs. -0.54 g/dL, P<0.0006), liver volume decreased (-5.20% vs. +1.44%, P<0.0072), and platelets increased (+32% vs. -9.06%, P<0.0001). Significant improvements (eliglustat vs. placebo) were observed for total (-1.1 vs. 0.0, p=0.002), spine (-0.6 vs. 0.1, p=0.002), and femur (-0.5 vs. 0.0, p=0.026) BMB scores. Although patients with symptomatic bone disease were excluded, absolute change in total spine DXA Z-scores approached significance (least square mean treatment difference=0.2, p=0.06). Burden of disease, as measured by the Gaucher DS3, was significantly reduced following treatment with eliglustat vs. placebo (least square mean treatment difference=-0.3, p=0.0452). No patients discontinued due to an adverse event, all of which were classified as mild to moderate, and 39/40 patients transitioned into the ongoing open-label trial. Arthralgia and nasopharyngitis occurred in >10% of eliglustat vs. placebo patients. Conclusion ENGAGE met its primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Significant effects on bone marrow and a trend toward BMD improvement in spine were observed. Eliglustat treatment was effective and well-tolerated in untreated adults with Gaucher disease type 1. Disclosures: Shankar: Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lukina:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Amato:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Packman:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pastores:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Balwani:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mistry:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ross:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Employment. Marulkar:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Employment. Peterschmitt:Genzyme, a Sanofi company: Employment.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».