Indirect Comparison of Lenadogene Nolparvovec Gene Therapy Versus Natural History in Patients with Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy Carrying the m.11778G>A MT-ND4 Mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lenadogene nolparvovec is a promising novel gene therapy for patients with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) carrying the m.11778G>A ND4 mutation (MT-ND4). A previous pooled analysis of phase 3 studies showed an improvement in visual acuity of patients injected with lenadogene nolparvovec compared to natural history. Here, we report updated results by incorporating data from the latest phase 3 trial REFLECT in the pool, increasing the number of treated patients from 76 to 174. METHODS: The visual acuity of 174 MT-ND4-carrying patients with LHON injected in one or both eyes with lenadogene nolparvovec from four pooled phase 3 studies (REVERSE, RESCUE and their long-term extension trial RESTORE; and REFLECT trial) was compared to the spontaneous evolution of an external control group of 208 matched patients from 11 natural history studies. RESULTS: Treated patients showed a clinically relevant and sustained improvement in their visual acuity when compared to natural history. Mean improvement versus natural history was - 0.30 logMAR (+ 15 ETDRS letters equivalent) at last observation (P < 0.01) with a maximal follow-up of 3.9 years after injection. Most treated eyes were on-chart as compared to less than half of natural history eyes at 48 months after vision loss (89.6% versus 48.1%; P < 0.01) and at last observation (76.1% versus 44.4%; P < 0.01). When we adjusted for covariates of interest (gender, age of onset, ethnicity, and duration of follow-up), the estimated mean gain was - 0.43 logMAR (+ 21.5 ETDRS letters equivalent) versus natural history at last observation (P < 0.0001). Treatment effect was consistent across all phase 3 clinical trials. Analyses from REFLECT suggest a larger treatment effect in patients receiving bilateral injection compared to unilateral injection. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of lenadogene nolparvovec in improving visual acuity in MT-ND4 LHON was confirmed in a large cohort of patients, compared to the spontaneous natural history decline. Bilateral injection of gene therapy may offer added benefits over unilateral injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02652780 (REVERSE); NCT02652767 (RESCUE); NCT03406104 (RESTORE); NCT03293524 (REFLECT); NCT03295071 (REALITY).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".