MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404584233 · doi:10.1186/s13023-024-03421-5

Genotype-specific effects of elamipretide in patients with primary mitochondrial myopathy: a post hoc analysis of the MMPOWER-3 trial

2024· article· en· W4404584233 on OpenAlexaff
Amel Karaa, Enrico Bertini, Valério Carelli, Bruce M. Cohen, Gregory M. Ennes, Marni J. Falk, Amy B. Goldstein, Gráinne S. Gorman, Richard Haas, Michio Hirano, Thomas Klopstock, Mary Kay Koenig, Cornelia Kornblum, Costanza Lamperti, Anna Lehman, Nicola Longo, Mária Judit Molnár, Sumit Parikh, H. Phan, Robert D. S. Pitceathly, Russell P. Saneto, Fernando Scaglia, Serenella Servidei, Mark A. Tarnopolsky, António Toscano, Johan L.K. Van Hove, John Vissing, Jerry Vockley, Jeffrey S. Finman, Anthony Abbruscato, David A. Brown, Alana Sullivan, James A. Shiffer, Michelango Mancuso

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's HospitalVancouver General Hospital
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMitochondrial DNAPost-hoc analysisCohortMitochondrial myopathyPopulationBiologyGeneticsChronic progressive external ophthalmoplegiaMitochondrial diseaseInternal medicineGenotypePlaceboMedicinePathologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As previously published, the MMPOWER-3 clinical trial did not demonstrate a significant benefit of elamipretide treatment in a genotypically diverse population of adults with primary mitochondrial myopathy (PMM). However, the prespecified subgroup of subjects with disease-causing nuclear DNA (nDNA) pathogenic variants receiving elamipretide experienced an improvement in the six-minute walk test (6MWT), while the cohort of subjects with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) pathogenic variants showed no difference versus placebo. These published findings prompted additional genotype-specific post hoc analyses of the MMPOWER-3 trial. Here, we present these analyses to further investigate the findings and to seek trends and commonalities among those subjects who responded to treatment, to build a more precise Phase 3 trial design for further investigation in likely responders. RESULTS: Subjects with mtDNA pathogenic variants or single large-scale mtDNA deletions represented 74% of the MMPOWER-3 population, with 70% in the mtDNA cohort having either single large-scale mtDNA deletions or MT-TL1 pathogenic variants. Most subjects in the nDNA cohort had pathogenic variants in genes required for mtDNA maintenance (mtDNA replisome), the majority of which were in POLG and TWNK. The mtDNA replisome post-hoc cohort displayed an improvement on the 6MWT, trending towards significant, in the elamipretide group when compared with placebo (25.2 ± 8.7 m versus 2.0 ± 8.6 m for placebo group; p = 0.06). The 6MWT results at week 24 in subjects with replisome variants showed a significant change in the elamipretide group subjects who had chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia (CPEO) (37.3 ± 9.5 m versus - 8.0 ± 10.7 m for the placebo group; p = 0.0024). Pharmacokinetic (exposure-response) analyses in the nDNA cohort showed a weak positive correlation between plasma elamipretide concentration and 6MWT improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Post hoc analyses indicated that elamipretide had a beneficial effect in PMM patients with mtDNA replisome disorders, underscoring the importance of considering specific genetic subtypes in PMM clinical trials. These data serve as the foundation for a follow-up Phase 3 clinical trial (NuPOWER) which has been designed as described in this paper to determine the efficacy of elamipretide in patients with mtDNA maintenance-related disorders. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: Class I CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03323749.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicMitochondrial Function and PathologyFrench-language works237,207