Safety and efficacy of intrathecal antibodies to Nogo-A in patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury results in permanent neurological impairment and disability due to the absence of spontaneous regeneration. NG101, a recombinant human antibody, neutralises the neurite growth-inhibiting protein Nogo-A, promoting neural repair and motor recovery in animal models of spinal cord injury. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intrathecal NG101 on recovery in patients with acute cervical traumatic spinal cord injury. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b clinical trial was done at 13 hospitals in the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland. Patients aged 18-70 years with acute, complete or incomplete cervical spinal cord injury (neurological level of injury C1-C8) within 4-28 days of injury were eligible for inclusion. Participants were initially randomly assigned 1:1 to intrathecal treatment with 45 mg NG101 or placebo (phosphate-buffered saline); 18 months into the study, the ratio was adjusted to 3:1 to achieve a final distribution of 2:1 to improve enrolment and drug exposure. Randomisation was done using a centralised, computer-based randomisation system and was stratified according to nine distinct outcome categories with a validated upper extremity motor score (UEMS) prediction model based on clinical parameters at screening. Six intrathecal injections were administered every 5 days over 4 weeks, starting within 28 days of injury. Investigators, study personnel, and study participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was change in UEMS at 6 months, analysed alongside safety in the full analysis set. The completed trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03935321. FINDINGS: From May 20, 2019, to July 20, 2022, 463 patients with acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury were screened, 334 were deemed ineligible and excluded, and 129 were randomly assigned to an intervention (80 patients in the NG101 group and 49 in the placebo group). The full analysis set comprised 78 patients from the NG101 group and 48 patients from the placebo group. 107 (85%) patients were male and 19 (15%) patients were female, with a median age of 51·5 years (IQR 30·0-60·0). Across all patients, the primary endpoint showed no significant difference between groups (with UEMS change at 6 months 1·37 [95% CI -1·44 to 4·18]; placebo group mean 19·20 [SD 11·78] at baseline and 30·91 [SD 15·49] at day 168; NG101 group mean 18·23 [SD 15·14] at baseline and 31·31 [19·54] at day 168). Treatment-related adverse events were similar between groups (nine in the NG101 group and six in the placebo group). 25 severe adverse events were reported: 18 in 11 (14%) patients in the NG101 group and seven in six (13%) patients in the placebo group. Although no treatment-related fatalities were reported in the NG101 group, one fatality not related to treatment occurred in the placebo group. Infections were the most common adverse event affecting 44 (92%) patients in the placebo group and 65 (83%) patients in the NG101 group. INTERPRETATION: NG101 did not improve UEMS in patients with acute spinal cord injury. Post-hoc subgroup analyses assessing UEMS and Spinal Cord Independence Measure of self-care in patients with motor-incomplete injury indicated potential beneficial effects that require investigation in future studies. FUNDING: EU program Horizon2020; Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation; Wings for Life; the Swiss Paraplegic Foundation; and the CeNeReg project of Wyss Zurich (University of Zurich and Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zurich).
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».