Efficacy of the pharmacologic chaperone migalastat in a subset of male patients with the classic phenotype of Fabry disease and migalastat-amenable variants: data from the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, double-blind clinical trial and extension study.

PURPOSE: Outcomes in patients with Fabry disease receiving migalastat during the phase 3 FACETS trial (NCT00925301) were evaluated by phenotype. METHODS: Data were evaluated in two subgroups of patients with migalastat-amenable GLA variants: "classic phenotype" (n = 14; males with residual peripheral blood mononuclear cell α-galactosidase A <3% normal and multiorgan system involvement) and "other patients" (n = 36; males not meeting classic phenotype criteria and all females). Endpoints included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), left ventricular mass index (LVMi), Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale diarrhea subscale (GSRS-D), renal peritubular capillary (PTC) globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) inclusions, and plasma globotriaosylsphingosine (lyso-Gb3). RESULTS: Baseline measures in the classic phenotype patients suggested a more severe phenotype. At month 24, mean (SD) annualized change in eGFRCKD-EPI with migalastat was -0.3 (3.76) mL/min/1.73 m2 in the classic phenotype subgroup; changes in LVMi, GSRS-D, and lyso-Gb3 were -16.7 (18.64) g/m2, -0.9 (1.66), and -36.8 (35.78) nmol/L, respectively. At month 6, mean PTC GL-3 inclusions decreased with migalastat (-0.8) and increased with placebo (0.3); switching from placebo to migalastat, PTC inclusions decreased by -0.7. Numerically smaller changes in these endpoints were observed in the other patients. CONCLUSION: Migalastat provided clinical benefit to patients with Fabry disease and amenable variants, regardless of disease severity.

Oral pharmacological chaperone migalastat compared with enzyme replacement therapy in Fabry disease: 18-month results from the randomised phase III ATTRACT study.

BACKGROUND: Fabry disease is an X-linked lysosomal storage disorder caused by GLA mutations, resulting in α-galactosidase (α-Gal) deficiency and accumulation of lysosomal substrates. Migalastat, an oral pharmacological chaperone being developed as an alternative to intravenous enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), stabilises specific mutant (amenable) forms of α-Gal to facilitate normal lysosomal trafficking. METHODS: The main objective of the 18-month, randomised, active-controlled ATTRACT study was to assess the effects of migalastat on renal function in patients with Fabry disease previously treated with ERT. Effects on heart, disease substrate, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven adults (56% female) receiving ERT (88% had multiorgan disease) were randomised (1.5:1), based on a preliminary cell-based assay of responsiveness to migalastat, to receive 18 months open-label migalastat or remain on ERT. Four patients had non-amenable mutant forms of α-Gal based on the validated cell-based assay conducted after treatment initiation and were excluded from primary efficacy analyses only. Migalastat and ERT had similar effects on renal function. Left ventricular mass index decreased significantly with migalastat treatment (-6.6 g/m2 (-11.0 to -2.2)); there was no significant change with ERT. Predefined renal, cardiac or cerebrovascular events occurred in 29% and 44% of patients in the migalastat and ERT groups, respectively. Plasma globotriaosylsphingosine remained low and stable following the switch from ERT to migalastat. PROs were comparable between groups. Migalastat was generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Migalastat offers promise as a first-in-class oral monotherapy alternative treatment to intravenous ERT for patients with Fabry disease and amenable mutations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00925301; Pre-results.

Treatment of Fabry's Disease with the Pharmacologic Chaperone Migalastat.

BACKGROUND: Fabry's disease, an X-linked disorder of lysosomal α-galactosidase deficiency, leads to substrate accumulation in multiple organs. Migalastat, an oral pharmacologic chaperone, stabilizes specific mutant forms of α-galactosidase, increasing enzyme trafficking to lysosomes. METHODS: The initial assay of mutant α-galactosidase forms that we used to categorize 67 patients with Fabry's disease for randomization to 6 months of double-blind migalastat or placebo (stage 1), followed by open-label migalastat from 6 to 12 months (stage 2) plus an additional year, had certain limitations. Before unblinding, a new, validated assay showed that 50 of the 67 participants had mutant α-galactosidase forms suitable for targeting by migalastat. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a response (≥50% reduction in the number of globotriaosylceramide inclusions per kidney interstitial capillary) at 6 months. We assessed safety along with disease substrates and renal, cardiovascular, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: The primary end-point analysis, involving patients with mutant α-galactosidase forms that were suitable or not suitable for migalastat therapy, did not show a significant treatment effect: 13 of 32 patients (41%) who received migalastat and 9 of 32 patients (28%) who received placebo had a response at 6 months (P=0.30). Among patients with suitable mutant α-galactosidase who received migalastat for up to 24 months, the annualized changes from baseline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and measured GFR were -0.30±0.66 and -1.51±1.33 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area, respectively. The left-ventricular-mass index decreased significantly from baseline (-7.7 g per square meter; 95% confidence interval [CI], -15.4 to -0.01), particularly when left ventricular hypertrophy was present (-18.6 g per square meter; 95% CI, -38.2 to 1.0). The severity of diarrhea, reflux, and indigestion decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Among all randomly assigned patients (with mutant α-galactosidase forms that were suitable or not suitable for migalastat therapy), the percentage of patients who had a response at 6 months did not differ significantly between the migalastat group and the placebo group. (Funded by Amicus Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00925301 [study AT1001-011] and NCT01458119 [study AT1001-041].).

An analysis of the impact of FDA's guidelines for addressing cardiovascular risk of drugs for type 2 diabetes on clinical development.

We examined the impact of FDA's 2008 guidelines for addressing cardiovascular risks of new therapies for type 2 diabetes on clinical trials. We focused on the new class of incretin-modulating drugs, exenatide, sitagliptin, saxagliptin and liraglutide, which were approved in 2005-2010. We contrasted these findings with those from 2 different groups: 1. diabetes drugs approved in the same timeframe but with a non-incretin mechanism of action (colesevelam HCl and bromocriptine mesylate) and 2. diabetes drugs with NDAs delayed and not yet approved within the same time frame (vildagliptin, alogliptin, insulin inhalation powder, and exenatide long acting release). The new guidelines have had an important impact on clinical development. Review time has increased over 2-fold. The increase is seen even if a drug with the same mechanism of action has been already approved. Whereas exenatide (approved in 2005) required 10 months of regulatory review, the approval of liraglutide in 2010 required more than twice as long (21 months). In contrast, the marketing authorization of liraglutide in the EU required 14 months. Additionally, the manufacturer of vildagliptin announced in June 2008, 30 months after the NDA was filed, that a re-submission to meet FDA's demands was not planned. The drug however received marketing authorization in the EU in 2007. The number of randomized patients and patient-years in NDAs increased more than 2.5 and 4 fold, respectively since the guidelines. The significant cost increases and negative publicity because of rare adverse reactions will adversely affect future clinical research in type 2 diabetes and not address its burgeoning health care impact.

An analysis of current pharmaceutical industry practices for making clinical trial results publicly accessible.

We compared the clinical trial transparency practices of US/European pharma by analyzing the publicly-accessible clinical trial results databases of major drugs (doripenem, varenicline, lapatinib, zoledronic acid, adalimumab, insulin glargine, raltegravir, gefitinib). We evaluated their accessibility and utility from the perspective of the lay public. We included databases on company websites, http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://clinicaltrials.ifpma.org. Only 2 of 8 company homepages provide a direct link to the results. While the use of common terms on company search engines led to results for 5 of the 8 drugs following 2-4 clicks, no logical pathway was identified. The number of clinical trials in the databases was inconsistent: 0 for doripenem to 45 for insulin glargine. Results from all phases of clinical development were provided for 2 (insulin glargine and gefitinib) of the 8 drugs. Analyses of phase III reports revealed that most critical elements of the International Conference of Harmonization E3 Structure and Content of Synopses for Clinical Trial Reports were provided for 2 (varenicline, lapatinib) of the 8 drugs. For adalimumab and zoledronic acid, only citations were provided, which the lay public would be unable to access. None of the clinical trial reports was written in lay language. User-friendly support, when provided, was of marginal benefit. Only 1 of the databases (gefitinib) permitted the user to find the most recently updated reports. None of the glossaries included explanations for adverse events or statistical methodology. In conclusion, our study indicates that the public faces significant hurdles in finding and understanding clinical trial results databases.