Safety and efficacy of laquinimod for Huntington's disease (LEGATO-HD): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Laquinimod modulates CNS inflammatory pathways thought to be involved in the pathology of Huntington's disease. Studies with laquinimod in transgenic rodent models of Huntington's disease suggested improvements in motor function, reduction of brain volume loss, and prolonged survival. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laquinimod in improving motor function and reducing caudate volume loss in patients with Huntington's disease. METHODS: LEGATO-HD was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study done at 48 sites across ten countries (Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, UK, and USA). Patients aged 21-55 years with a cytosine-adenosine-guanine (CAG) repeat length of between 36 and 49 who had symptomatic Huntington's disease with a Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale-Total Motor Score (UHDRS-TMS) of higher than 5 and a Total Functional Capacity score of 8 or higher were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by centralised interactive response technology to laquinimod 0·5 mg, 1·0 mg, or 1·5 mg, or to matching placebo, administered orally once daily over 52 weeks; people involved in the randomisation had no other role in the study. Participants, investigators, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The 1·5 mg group was discontinued before recruitment was finished because of cardiovascular safety concerns in multiple sclerosis studies. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the UHDRS-TMS and the secondary endpoint was percent change in caudate volume, both comparing the 1·0 mg group with the placebo group at week 52. Primary and secondary endpoints were assessed in the full analysis set (ie, all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline UHDRS-TMS assessment). Safety measures included adverse event frequency and severity, and clinical and laboratory examinations, and were assessed in the safety analysis set (ie, all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02215616, and EudraCT, 2014-000418-75, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2014, and June 19, 2018, 352 adults with Huntington's disease (179 [51%] men and 173 [49%] women; mean age 43·9 [SD 7·6] years and 340 [97%] White) were randomly assigned: 107 to laquinimod 0·5 mg, 107 to laquinimod 1·0 mg, 30 to laquinimod 1·5 mg, and 108 to matching placebo. Least squares mean change from baseline in UHDRS-TMS at week 52 was 1·98 (SE 0·83) in the laquinimod 1·0 mg group and 1·2 (0·82) in the placebo group (least squares mean difference 0·78 [95% CI -1·42 to 2·98], p=0·4853). Least squares mean change in caudate volume was 3·10% (SE 0·38) in the 1·0 mg group and 4·86% (0·38) in the placebo group (least squares mean difference -1·76% [95% CI -2·67 to -0·85]; p=0·0002). Laquinimod was well tolerated and there were no new safety findings. Serious adverse events were reported by eight (7%) patients on placebo, seven (7%) on laquinimod 0·5 mg, five (5%) on laquinimod 1·0 mg, and one (3%) on laquinimod 1·5 mg. There was one death, which occurred in the placebo group and was unrelated to treatment. The most frequent adverse events in all laquinimod dosed groups (0·5 mg, 1·0 mg, and 1·5 mg) were headache (38 [16%]), diarrhoea (24 [10%]), fall (18 [7%]), nasopharyngitis (20 [8%]), influenza (15 [6%]), vomiting (13 [5%]), arthralgia (11 [5%]), irritability (ten [4%]), fatigue (eight [3%]), and insomnia (eight [3%]). INTERPRETATION: Laquinimod did not show a significant effect on motor symptoms assessed by the UHDRS-TMS, but significantly reduced caudate volume loss compared with placebo at week 52. Huntington's disease has a chronic and slowly progressive course, and this study does not address whether a longer duration of laquinimod treatment could have produced detectable and meaningful changes in the clinical assessments. FUNDING: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.

CONCERTO: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of oral laquinimod in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Interventions targeting the adaptive immune response are needed in multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: Evaluate laquinimod's efficacy, safety, and tolerability in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: CONCERTO was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase-3 study. RRMS patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily oral laquinimod 0.6 or 1.2 mg or placebo for ⩽24 months (n = 727, n = 732, and n = 740, respectively). Primary endpoint was time to 3-month confirmed disability progression (CDP). The laquinimod 1.2-mg dose arm was discontinued (1 January 2016) due to cardiovascular events at high doses. Safety was monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: CONCERTO did not meet the primary endpoint of significant effect with laquinimod 0.6-mg versus placebo on 3-month CDP (hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-1.31; p = 0.706). Secondary endpoint p values were nominal and non-inferential. Laquinimod 0.6 mg demonstrated 40% reduction in percent brain volume change from baseline to Month 15 versus placebo (p < 0.0001). The other secondary endpoint, time to first relapse, and annualized relapse rate (an exploratory endpoint) were numerically lower (both, p = 0.0001). No unexpected safety findings were reported with laquinimod 0.6 mg. CONCLUSION: Laquinimod 0.6 mg demonstrated only nominally significant effects on clinical relapses and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes and was generally well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01707992).

Is this the right normalization? A diagnostic tool for ChIP-seq normalization.

BACKGROUND: Chip-seq experiments are becoming a standard approach for genome-wide profiling protein-DNA interactions, such as detecting transcription factor binding sites, histone modification marks and RNA Polymerase II occupancy. However, when comparing a ChIP sample versus a control sample, such as Input DNA, normalization procedures have to be applied in order to remove experimental source of biases. Despite the substantial impact that the choice of the normalization method can have on the results of a ChIP-seq data analysis, their assessment is not fully explored in the literature. In particular, there are no diagnostic tools that show whether the applied normalization is indeed appropriate for the data being analyzed. RESULTS: In this work we propose a novel diagnostic tool to examine the appropriateness of the estimated normalization procedure. By plotting the empirical densities of log relative risks in bins of equal read count, along with the estimated normalization constant, after logarithmic transformation, the researcher is able to assess the appropriateness of the estimated normalization constant. We use the diagnostic plot to evaluate the appropriateness of the estimates obtained by CisGenome, NCIS and CCAT on several real data examples. Moreover, we show the impact that the choice of the normalization constant can have on standard tools for peak calling such as MACS or SICER. Finally, we propose a novel procedure for controlling the FDR using sample swapping. This procedure makes use of the estimated normalization constant in order to gain power over the naive choice of constant (used in MACS and SICER), which is the ratio of the total number of reads in the ChIP and Input samples. CONCLUSIONS: Linear normalization approaches aim to estimate a scale factor, r, to adjust for different sequencing depths when comparing ChIP versus Input samples. The estimated scaling factor can easily be incorporated in many peak caller algorithms to improve the accuracy of the peak identification. The diagnostic plot proposed in this paper can be used to assess how adequate ChIP/Input normalization constants are, and thus it allows the user to choose the most adequate estimate for the analysis.