MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404091899 · doi:10.1093/brain/awae277

Phase 2b program with sonlicromanol in patients with mitochondrial disease due to m.3243A>G mutation

2024· article· en· W4404091899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Smeıtınk, Brigitte Bosman, Mirian C. H. Janssen, Thomas Klopstock, Gráinne S. Gorman, John Vissing, Gerrit Ruiterkamp, Chris J. Edgar, Evertine J. Abbink, Rob van Maanen, Oksana Pogoryelova, Claudia Stendel, A. Bischoff, Ivan Karin, Anne Kümmel, Lydia Burgert, C.M. Verhaak, G. Herma Renkema

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHORIZON EUROPE European Innovation CouncilJulius ClinicalHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungE-Rare
KeywordsTolerabilityMedicineRandomized controlled trialPlaceboMitochondrial diseaseClinical endpointInternal medicineAdverse effectPathologyMitochondrial DNABiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitochondrial disease incorporates a group of rare conditions with no approved treatment to date, except for Leber hereditary optic neuropathy. Therapeutic options to alleviate the symptoms of mitochondrial disease are urgently needed. Sonlicromanol is a promising candidate, as it positively alters the key metabolic and inflammatory pathways associated with mitochondrial disease. Sonlicromanol is a reductive and oxidative distress modulator, selectively inhibiting microsomal prostaglandin E1 synthase activity. This phase 2b program, aimed at evaluating sonlicromanol in adults with m.3243A>G mutation and primary mitochondrial disease, consisted of a randomized controlled (RCT) study (dose-selection) followed by a 52-week open-label extension study (EXT, long-term tolerability, safety and efficacy of sonlicromanol). Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 100 or 50 mg sonlicromanol or placebo twice daily (bid) for 28 days with a ≥2-week wash-out period between treatments. Patients who completed the RCT study entered the EXT study, wherein they received 100 mg sonlicromanol bid. Overall, 27 patients were randomized (24 RCT patients completed all periods). Fifteen patients entered the EXT, and 12 patients were included in the EXT analysis set. All patients reported good tolerability and favourable safety, with pharmacokinetic results comparable to the earlier phase 2a study. The RCT primary end point [change from placebo in the attentional domain of the cognition score (visual identification; Cogstate IDN)] did not reach statistical significance. Using a categorization of the subject's period baseline a treatment effect over placebo was observed if their baseline was more affected (P = 0.0338). Using this approach, there were signals of improvements over placebo in at least one dose in the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, P = 0.0143), Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (P = 0.0113) and the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (P = 0.0256). Statistically and/or clinically meaningful improvements were observed in the patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures at the end of the EXT study [Test of Attentional Performance (TAP) with alarm, P = 0.0102; TAP without alarm, P = 0.0047; BDI somatic, P = 0.0261; BDI total, P = 0.0563; SF12 physical component score, P = 0.0008]. Seven of nine domains of RAND-Short Form-36-like SF-36 pain improved (P = 0.0105). Other promising results were observed in the Neuro-Quality of Life Short Form-Fatigue Scale (P = 0.0036), mini-Balance Evaluation Systems test (P = 0.0009), McGill Pain Questionnaire (P = 0.0105), EuroQol EQ-5D-5L-Visual Analog Scale (P = 0.0213) and EQ-5D-5L-Index (P = 0.0173). Most patients showed improvement in the Five Times Sit-To-Stand Test. Sonlicromanol was well-tolerated and demonstrated a favourable benefit/risk ratio for up to 1 year. Sonlicromanol was efficacious in patients when affected at baseline, as seen across a variety of clinically relevant domains. Long-term treatment showed more pronounced changes from baseline.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207