MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Medina Escobar, Verónica Bruno, Justyna R. Sarna

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuntingtinMedicineHuntington's diseaseHuntingtin ProteinTrinucleotide repeat expansionInternal medicineClinical endpointDiseasePolyglutamine tractChoreaPharmacologyOncologyClinical trialGeneticsBiologyGeneAllele

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207