Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
JAMA ; 326(10): 926-939, 2021 09 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34519802

RESUMO

Importance: Urate elevation, despite associations with crystallopathic, cardiovascular, and metabolic disorders, has been pursued as a potential disease-modifying strategy for Parkinson disease (PD) based on convergent biological, epidemiological, and clinical data. Objective: To determine whether sustained urate-elevating treatment with the urate precursor inosine slows early PD progression. Design, Participants, and Setting: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of oral inosine treatment in early PD. A total of 587 individuals consented, and 298 with PD not yet requiring dopaminergic medication, striatal dopamine transporter deficiency, and serum urate below the population median concentration (<5.8 mg/dL) were randomized between August 2016 and December 2017 at 58 US sites, and were followed up through June 2019. Interventions: Inosine, dosed by blinded titration to increase serum urate concentrations to 7.1-8.0 mg/dL (n = 149) or matching placebo (n = 149) for up to 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was rate of change in the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS; parts I-III) total score (range, 0-236; higher scores indicate greater disability; minimum clinically important difference of 6.3 points) prior to dopaminergic drug therapy initiation. Secondary outcomes included serum urate to measure target engagement, adverse events to measure safety, and 29 efficacy measures of disability, quality of life, cognition, mood, autonomic function, and striatal dopamine transporter binding as a biomarker of neuronal integrity. Results: Based on a prespecified interim futility analysis, the study closed early, with 273 (92%) of the randomized participants (49% women; mean age, 63 years) completing the study. Clinical progression rates were not significantly different between participants randomized to inosine (MDS-UPDRS score, 11.1 [95% CI, 9.7-12.6] points per year) and placebo (MDS-UPDRS score, 9.9 [95% CI, 8.4-11.3] points per year; difference, 1.26 [95% CI, -0.59 to 3.11] points per year; P = .18). Sustained elevation of serum urate by 2.03 mg/dL (from a baseline level of 4.6 mg/dL; 44% increase) occurred in the inosine group vs a 0.01-mg/dL change in serum urate in the placebo group (difference, 2.02 mg/dL [95% CI, 1.85-2.19 mg/dL]; P<.001). There were no significant differences for secondary efficacy outcomes including dopamine transporter binding loss. Participants randomized to inosine, compared with placebo, experienced fewer serious adverse events (7.4 vs 13.1 per 100 patient-years) but more kidney stones (7.0 vs 1.4 stones per 100 patient-years). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients recently diagnosed as having PD, treatment with inosine, compared with placebo, did not result in a significant difference in the rate of clinical disease progression. The findings do not support the use of inosine as a treatment for early PD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02642393.


Assuntos
Progressão da Doença , Inosina/uso terapêutico , Doença de Parkinson/tratamento farmacológico , Ácido Úrico/sangue , Idoso , Biomarcadores/sangue , Proteínas da Membrana Plasmática de Transporte de Dopamina/deficiência , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Inosina/efeitos adversos , Cálculos Renais/induzido quimicamente , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doença de Parkinson/sangue , Doença de Parkinson/fisiopatologia , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Falha de Tratamento
2.
Mov Disord Clin Pract ; 7(4): 440-447, 2020 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32373661

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a neurodegenerative disease without approved therapies, and therapeutics are often tried off-label in the hope of slowing disease progression. Results from these experiences are seldom shared, which limits evidence-based knowledge to guide future treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: To describe an open-label experience, including safety/tolerability, and longitudinal changes in biomarkers of disease progression in PSP-Richardson's syndrome (PSP-RS) patients treated with either salsalate or young plasma and compare to natural history data from previous multicenter studies. METHODS: For 6 months, 10 PSP-RS patients received daily salsalate 2,250 mg, and 5 patients received monthly infusions of four units of young plasma. Every 3 months, clinical severity was assessed with the Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Rating Scale (PSPRS), and MRI was obtained for volumetric measurement of midbrain. A range of exploratory biomarkers, including cerebrospinal fluid levels of neurofilament light chain, were collected at baseline and 6 months. Interventional data were compared to historical PSP-RS patients from the davunetide clinical trial and the 4-Repeat Tauopathy Neuroimaging Initiative. RESULTS: Salsalate and young plasma were safe and well tolerated. PSPRS change from baseline (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) was similar in salsalate (+5.6 ± 9.6), young plasma (+5.0 ± 7.1), and historical controls (+5.6 ± 7.1), and change in midbrain volume (cm3 ± SD) did not differ between salsalate (-0.07 ± 0.03), young plasma (-0.06 ± 0.03), and historical controls (-0.06 ± 0.04). No differences were observed between groups on any exploratory endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Neither salsalate nor young plasma had a detectable effect on disease progression in PSP-RS. Focused open-label clinical trials incorporating historical clinical, neuropsychological, fluid, and imaging biomarkers provide useful preliminary data about the promise of novel PSP-directed therapies.

3.
J Clin Med ; 9(11)2020 Nov 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33207828

RESUMO

SRX246 is a vasopressin (AVP) 1a receptor antagonist that crosses the blood-brain barrier. It reduced impulsive aggression, fear, depression and anxiety in animal models, blocked the actions of intranasal AVP on aggression/fear circuits in an experimental medicine fMRI study and demonstrated excellent safety in Phase 1 multiple-ascending dose clinical trials. The present study was a 3-arm, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week, dose escalation study of SRX246 in early symptomatic Huntington's disease (HD) patients with irritability. Our goal was to determine whether SRX246 was safe and well tolerated in these HD patients given its potential use for the treatment of problematic neuropsychiatric symptoms. Participants were randomized to receive placebo or to escalate to 120 mg twice daily or 160 mg twice daily doses of SRX246. Assessments included standard safety tests, the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), and exploratory measures of problem behaviors. The groups had comparable demographics, features of HD and baseline irritability. Eighty-two out of 106 subjects randomized completed the trial on their assigned dose of drug. One-sided exact-method confidence interval tests were used to reject the null hypothesis of inferior tolerability or safety for each dose group vs. placebo. Apathy and suicidality were not affected by SRX246. Most adverse events in the active arms were considered unlikely to be related to SRX246. The compound was safe and well tolerated in HD patients and can be moved forward as a candidate to treat irritability and aggression.

4.
JAMA Neurol ; 77(6): 755-763, 2020 06 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32202612

RESUMO

Importance: One major advantage of developing large, federally funded networks for clinical research in neurology is the ability to have a trial-ready network that can efficiently conduct scientifically rigorous projects to improve the health of people with neurologic disorders. Observations: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT) was established in 2011 and renewed in 2018 with the goal of being an efficient network to test between 5 and 7 promising new agents in phase II clinical trials. A clinical coordinating center, data coordinating center, and 25 sites were competitively chosen. Common infrastructure was developed to accelerate timelines for clinical trials, including central institutional review board (a first for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), master clinical trial agreements, the use of common data elements, and experienced research sites and coordination centers. During the first 7 years, the network exceeded the goal of conducting 5 to 7 studies, with 9 funded. High interest was evident by receipt of 148 initial applications for potential studies in various neurologic disorders. Across the first 8 studies (the ninth study was funded at end of initial funding period), the central institutional review board approved the initial protocol in a mean (SD) of 59 (21) days, and additional sites were added a mean (SD) of 22 (18) days after submission. The median time from central institutional review board approval to first site activation was 47.5 days (mean, 102.1; range, 1-282) and from first site activation to first participant consent was 27 days (mean, 37.5; range, 0-96). The median time for database readiness was 3.5 months (mean, 4.0; range, 0-8) from funding receipt. In the 4 completed studies, enrollment met or exceeded expectations with 96% overall data accuracy across all sites. Nine peer-reviewed manuscripts were published, and 22 oral presentations or posters and 9 invited presentations were given at regional, national, and international meetings. Conclusions and Relevance: NeuroNEXT initiated 8 studies, successfully enrolled participants at or ahead of schedule, collected high-quality data, published primary results in high-impact journals, and provided mentorship, expert statistical, and trial management support to several new investigators. Partnerships were successfully created between government, academia, industry, foundations, and patient advocacy groups. Clinical trial consortia can efficiently and successfully address a range of important neurologic research and therapeutic questions.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/organização & administração , National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (USA) , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso/terapia , Neurologia , Neurociências , Humanos , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA