Effect of Different Corticosteroid Dosing Regimens on Clinical Outcomes in Boys With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Corticosteroids improve strength and function in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, there is uncertainty regarding the optimum regimen and dosage. Objective: To compare efficacy and adverse effects of the 3 most frequently prescribed corticosteroid regimens in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, parallel-group randomized clinical trial including 196 boys aged 4 to 7 years with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who had not previously been treated with corticosteroids; enrollment occurred between January 30, 2013, and September 17, 2016, at 32 clinic sites in 5 countries. The boys were assessed for 3 years (last participant visit on October 16, 2019). Interventions: Participants were randomized to daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg) (n = 65), daily deflazacort (0.90 mg/kg) (n = 65), or intermittent prednisone (0.75 mg/kg for 10 days on and then 10 days off) (n = 66). Main Outcomes and Measures: The global primary outcome comprised 3 end points: rise from the floor velocity (in rise/seconds), forced vital capacity (in liters), and participant or parent global satisfaction with treatment measured by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM; score range, 0 to 100), each averaged across all study visits after baseline. Pairwise group comparisons used a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .017. Results: Among the 196 boys randomized (mean age, 5.8 years [SD, 1.0 years]), 164 (84%) completed the trial. Both daily prednisone and daily deflazacort were more effective than intermittent prednisone for the primary outcome (P < .001 for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone using a global test; P = .017 for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone using a global test) and the daily regimens did not differ significantly (P = .38 for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort using a global test). The between-group differences were principally attributable to rise from the floor velocity (0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.08 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone [P = .003]; 0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.09 rise/s] for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone [P = .017]; and -0.004 rise/s [98.3% CI, -0.03 to 0.02 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort [P = .75]). The pairwise comparisons for forced vital capacity and TSQM global satisfaction subscale score were not statistically significant. The most common adverse events were abnormal behavior (22 [34%] in the daily prednisone group, 25 [38%] in the daily deflazacort group, and 24 [36%] in the intermittent prednisone group), upper respiratory tract infection (24 [37%], 19 [29%], and 24 [36%], respectively), and vomiting (19 [29%], 17 [26%], and 15 [23%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, treatment with daily prednisone or daily deflazacort, compared with intermittent prednisone alternating 10 days on and 10 days off, resulted in significant improvement over 3 years in a composite outcome comprising measures of motor function, pulmonary function, and satisfaction with treatment; there was no significant difference between the 2 daily corticosteroid regimens. The findings support the use of a daily corticosteroid regimen over the intermittent prednisone regimen tested in this study as initial treatment for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01603407.

A checklist for clinical trials in rare disease: obstacles and anticipatory actions-lessons learned from the FOR-DMD trial.

BACKGROUND: Trials in rare diseases have many challenges, among which are the need to set up multiple sites in different countries to achieve recruitment targets and the divergent landscape of clinical trial regulations in those countries. Over the past years, there have been initiatives to facilitate the process of international study set-up, but the fruits of these deliberations require time to be operationally in place. FOR-DMD (Finding the Optimum Steroid Regimen for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy) is an academic-led clinical trial which aims to find the optimum steroid regimen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for 5 years (July 2010 to June 2015), anticipating that all sites (40 across the USA, Canada, the UK, Germany and Italy) would be open to recruitment from July 2011. However, study start-up was significantly delayed and recruitment did not start until January 2013. METHOD: The FOR-DMD study is used as an example to identify systematic problems in the set-up of international, multi-centre clinical trials. The full timeline of the FOR-DMD study, from funding approval to site activation, was collated and reviewed. Systematic issues were identified and grouped into (1) study set-up, e.g. drug procurement; (2) country set-up, e.g. competent authority applications; and (3) site set-up, e.g. contracts, to identify the main causes of delay and suggest areas where anticipatory action could overcome these obstacles in future studies. RESULTS: Time from the first contact to site activation across countries ranged from 6 to 24 months. Reasons of delay were universal (sponsor agreement, drug procurement, budgetary constraints), country specific (complexity and diversity of regulatory processes, indemnity requirements) and site specific (contracting and approvals). The main identified obstacles included (1) issues related to drug supply, (2) NIH requirements regarding contracting with non-US sites, (3) differing regulatory requirements in the five participating countries, (4) lack of national harmonisation with contracting and the requirement to negotiate terms and contract individually with each site and (5) diversity of languages needed for study materials. Additionally, as with many academic-led studies, the FOR-DMD study did not have access to the infrastructure and expertise that a contracted research organisation could provide, organisations often employed in pharmaceutical-sponsored studies. This delay impacted recruitment, challenged the clinical relevance of the study outcomes and potentially delayed the delivery of the best treatment to patients. CONCLUSION: Based on the FOR-DMD experience, and as an interim solution, we have devised a checklist of steps to not only anticipate and minimise delays in academic international trial initiation but also identify obstacles that will require a concerted effort on the part of many stakeholders to mitigate.

Developing standardized corticosteroid treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Despite corticosteroids being the only treatment documented to improve strength and function in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) corticosteroid prescription is inconsistent and in some countries, corticosteroids are not prescribed. We are conducting a clinical trial that (1) compares the 3 most frequently prescribed corticosteroid regimes; (2) standardizes treatment of DMD complications; and (3) standardizes prevention of corticosteroid side effects. Investigators at 38 sites in 5 countries plan to recruit 300 boys aged 4-7 who are randomly assigned to one of three regimens: daily prednisone; daily deflazacort; or intermittent prednisone (10days on/10days off). Boys are followed for a minimum of 3years to assess the relative effectiveness and adverse event profiles of the different regimens. The primary outcome is a 3-dimensional variable consisting of log-transformed time to rise from the floor, forced vital capacity, and subject/parent satisfaction with treatment, each averaged over all post-baseline visits. The study protocol includes evidence- and consensus-based treatment of DMD complications and of corticosteroid side effects. This study seeks to establish a standard corticosteroid regimen for DMD. Since all new interventions for DMD are being developed as add-on therapies to corticosteroids, defining the optimum regimen is of importance for all new treatments.

Corticosteroids in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: major variations in practice.

INTRODUCTION: In 2004, a Cochrane Review and AAN practice parameter concluded that prednisone 0.75 mg/kg/day is of short-term efficacy in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Subsequent efforts to standardize care for DMD indicated wide variation in corticosteroid use. METHODS: We surveyed physicians who follow patients with DMD, including: (1) clinics in the TREAT-NMD (Translational Research in Europe-Assessment and Treatment of Neuromuscular Diseases) network (predominantly Europe) and (2) U.S. MDA clinic directors. We also documented the co-administered corticosteroids in a trial of a putative treatment (ataluren) for DMD. RESULTS: Of 105 Treat-NMD clinicians, corticosteroids were not used in 10 clinics, and 29 different regimens were used--the most frequent 0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone (61 centers); 10 days on/10 days off (36 centers); 0.9 mg/kg/day deflazacort (32 centers); and 5 mg/kg/day on weekends (10 centers). Similar diversity was identified in MDA clinics and in the ataluren trial. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in corticosteroid use suggests uncertainty about risks/benefits of corticosteroid regimens for DMD.

Challenges in the design and conduct of therapeutic trials in channel disorders.

Neurologic channelopathies are rare, inherited paroxysmal disorders of muscle (e.g., the periodic paralyses and nondystrophic myotonias) and brain (e.g., episodic ataxias, idiopathic epilepsies, and familial hemiplegic migraine). Mutation is necessary but not sufficient for phenotypic expression and there are no simple phenotype-genotype relationships. Attacks may be spontaneous or triggered, with affected individuals often asymptomatic and neurologically normal between attacks. Performance of daily activities may be affected by the unpredictable nature; often late-onset degenerative changes cause permanent disability; for example, muscle atrophy and fixed weakness in periodic paralysis and cerebellar atrophy and progressive ataxia in the episodic ataxias. Currently, the natural history of these disorders is being defined. Clearly, the established methodologies for randomized controlled clinical trials are not feasible for rare diseases and innovative trial design is essential. There is a requirement for clinically relevant outcome measures for episodic disorders. Increasing our knowledge of the pathophysiology will help in targeting and designing rational therapeutic approaches. We will use the current understanding of the neurological channelopathies to illustrate some of the opportunities, challenges, and strategies in bringing safe and effective treatments to patients. There are reasons for optimism that new partnerships between clinical investigators, government, patient advocacy groups, and industry will prevent symptoms and progression of the neurological channelopathies.