Paulo Fontoura

Ocrelizumab versus Placebo in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND An evolving understanding of the immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis suggests that depleting B cells could be useful for treatment. We studied ocrelizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes CD20‐expressing B cells, in the primary progressive form of the disease. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 732 patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravenous ocrelizumab (600 mg) or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks and until a prespecified number of confirmed disability progression events had occurred. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with disability progression confirmed at 12 weeks in a time‐to‐event analysis. RESULTS The percentage of patients with 12‐week confirmed disability progression was 32.9% with ocrelizumab versus 39.3% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.98; P=0.03). The percentage of patients with 24‐week confirmed disability progression was 29.6% with ocrelizumab versus 35.7% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.98; P=0.04). By week 120, performance on the timed 25‐foot walk worsened by 38.9% with ocrelizumab versus 55.1% with placebo (P=0.04); the total volume of brain lesions on T2‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) decreased by 3.4% with ocrelizumab and increased by 7.4% with placebo (P<0.001); and the percentage of brain‐volume loss was 0.90% with ocrelizumab versus 1.09% with placebo (P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the change in the Physical Component Summary score of the 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey. Infusion‐related reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, and oral herpes infections were more frequent with ocrelizumab than with placebo. Neoplasms occurred in 2.3% of patients who received ocrelizumab and in 0.8% of patients who received placebo; there was no clinically significant difference between groups in the rates of serious adverse events and serious infections. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis, ocrelizumab was associated with lower rates of clinical and MRI progression than placebo. Extended observation is required to determine the long‐term safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche; ORATORIO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01194570.)

Ocrelizumab versus Interferon Beta-1a in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND B cells influence the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. Ocrelizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes CD20+ B cells. METHODS In two identical phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned 821 and 835 patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis to receive intravenous ocrelizumab at a dose of 600 mg every 24 weeks or subcutaneous interferon beta‐1a at a dose of 44 μg three times weekly for 96 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate. RESULTS The annualized relapse rate was lower with ocrelizumab than with interferon beta‐1a in trial 1 (0.16 vs. 0.29; 46% lower rate with ocrelizumab; P<0.001) and in trial 2 (0.16 vs. 0.29; 47% lower rate; P<0.001). In prespecified pooled analyses, the percentage of patients with disability progression confirmed at 12 weeks was significantly lower with ocrelizumab than with interferon beta‐1a (9.1% vs. 13.6%; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.81; P<0.001), as was the percentage of patients with disability progression confirmed at 24 weeks (6.9% vs. 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.84; P=0.003). The mean number of gadolinium‐enhancing lesions per T1‐weighted magnetic resonance scan was 0.02 with ocrelizumab versus 0.29 with interferon beta‐1a in trial 1 (94% lower number of lesions with ocrelizumab, P<0.001) and 0.02 versus 0.42 in trial 2 (95% lower number of lesions, P<0.001). The change in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite score (a composite measure of walking speed, upper‐limb movements, and cognition; for this z score, negative values indicate worsening and positive values indicate improvement) significantly favored ocrelizumab over interferon beta‐1a in trial 2 (0.28 vs. 0.17, P=0.004) but not in trial 1 (0.21 vs. 0.17, P=0.33). Infusion‐related reactions occurred in 34.3% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab. Serious infection occurred in 1.3% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab and in 2.9% of those treated with interferon beta‐1a. Neoplasms occurred in 0.5% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab and in 0.2% of those treated with interferon beta‐1a. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis, ocrelizumab was associated with lower rates of disease activity and progression than interferon beta‐1a over a period of 96 weeks. Larger and longer studies of the safety of ocrelizumab are required. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche; OPERA I and II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01247324 and NCT01412333, respectively.)

Altered microRNA expression in B lymphocytes in multiple sclerosis: Towards a better understanding of treatment effects

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are posttranscriptional regulators of gene expression. We compared the expression of 1059 miRNAs in B lymphocytes from untreated and natalizumab treated relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients and healthy volunteers (HV). Forty nine miRNAs were down-regulated in untreated MS patients compared with HV. A distinct pattern of 10 differentially expressed miRNAs was found in natalizumab treated patients compared with untreated patients. Two clusters, i.e. miR-106b-25 and miR-17-92, were particularly deregulated. MiRNA-mRNA interaction analysis revealed B cell receptor, phosphatidyl-inositol-3-kinase (PI3K) and phosphatase and tensin homology (PTEN) signaling being the key affected pathways. We discovered deregulated viral miRNAs in untreated patients as compared with HV and natalizumab treated patients, a novel finding that may be related to latency and activation of viruses in MS. Our findings provide first insights into miRNA dependent regulation of B cell function in MS and the impact of a therapy not primarily targeting B cells on this regulation.

Drug discovery for autism spectrum disorder: challenges and opportunities

The rising rates of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the lack of effective medications to treat its core symptoms have led to an increased sense of urgency to identify therapies for this group of neurodevelopmental conditions. Developing drugs for ASD, however, has been challenging because of a limited understanding of its pathophysiology, difficulties in modelling the disease in vitro and in vivo, the heterogeneity of symptoms, and the dearth of prior experience in clinical development. In the past few years these challenges have been mitigated by considerable advances in our understanding of forms of ASD caused by single-gene alterations, such as fragile X syndrome and tuberous sclerosis. In these cases we have gained insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying these conditions. In addition, they have aided in the development of animal models and compounds with the potential for disease modification in clinical development. Moreover, genetic studies are illuminating the molecular pathophysiology of ASD, and new tools such as induced pluripotent stem cells offer novel possibilities for drug screening and disease diagnostics. Finally, large-scale collaborations between academia and industry are starting to address some of the key barriers to developing drugs for ASD. Here, we propose a conceptual framework for drug discovery in ASD encompassing target identification, drug profiling and considerations for clinical trials in this novel area.

Efficacy and Safety of Basimglurant as Adjunctive Therapy for Major Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Antagonism of the postsynaptic metabotropic glutamate subtype 5 receptor is a novel approach to modulate glutamatergic function and has proven efficacy in a number of preclinical behavioral models of depression. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of basimglurant modified-release (MR) vs placebo as adjunctive therapy to ongoing antidepressant medication therapy in patients with MDD who had inadequate response within the current episode. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this phase 2b, double blind, randomized clinical trial of 333 adult patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of MDD across 59 research clinics globally, patients were assigned to 1 of 2 doses of basimglurant MR (0.5 or 1.5 mg) or placebo once daily, adjunctive to ongoing antidepressant medication therapy (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor). Patients were enrolled from October 5, 2011, through July 26, 2013. INTERVENTIONS Six-week treatment with 0.5 mg of basimglurant MR, 1.5-mg basimglurant MR, or placebo once daily, adjunctive to ongoing antidepressant medication therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was the mean change from baseline score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), as rated by the clinician at week 6. Other measures included patient-rated MADRS, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, Patient Global Impression-Improvement, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scales and adverse events. RESULTS A total of 596 patients were screened, and 333 were randomized into the study (mean [SD] age, 47 [11.2] years; 216 female [65.1%]). The primary end point (mean change in clinician-rated MADRS score from baseline to end of treatment) was not met (effect size [ES] = 0.16, P = .42; intent-to-treat [ITT] mixed-effects model for repeated measures [MMRM] analysis for comparing 1.5-mg basimglurant MR and placebo). Across secondary and exploratory end points, 1.5-mg basimglurant MR revealed larger improvements vs placebo on the patient-rated MADRS (-16.2 vs -13.3, ES = 0.28, nominal P = .04), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (-7.5 vs -5.8; ES = 0.37, nominal P = .009), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement mean score, and Patient Global Impression-Improvement mean score. Improvements were also seen in the patient-rated MADRS remission rate (36.0% vs 22.0%; nominal P = .03) and response rate (50.5% vs 40.4%; nominal P = .13), A 0.5-mg dose of basimglurant MR had no benefit over placebo in any of these measures. The most common adverse event was dizziness, which was mostly transient and of mild intensity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE No difference was observed on the studys primary outcome measure, the clinician-rated MADRS change from baseline to end of treatment, between adjunctive basimglurant MR vs placebo. Adjunctive 1.5-mg basimglurant MR daily revealed, however, an antidepressant effect across secondary end points, particularly in patient-rated measures. These findings combined with good tolerability warrant further investigation with this compound in depressive disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01437657.

Safety and efficacy of olesoxime in patients with type 2 or non-ambulatory type 3 spinal muscular atrophy: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a progressive motor neuron disease causing loss of motor function and reduced life expectancy, for which limited treatment is available. We investigated the safety and efficacy of olesoxime in patients with type 2 or non-ambulatory type 3 SMA. METHODS This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study was done in 22 neuromuscular care centres in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, and the UK. Safety and efficacy of olesoxime were assessed in patients aged 3-25 years with genetically confirmed type 2 or non-ambulatory type 3 SMA. A centralised, computerised randomisation process allocated patients (2:1 with stratification by SMA type and centre) to receive olesoxime (10 mg/kg per day) in an oral liquid suspension or placebo for 24 months. Patients, investigators assessing outcomes, and sponsor study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline compared with 24 months between the two treatment groups in functional domains 1 and 2 of the Motor Function Measure (MFM D1 + D2) assessed in the full analysis population. A shorter, 20-item version of the MFM, which was specifically adapted for young children, was used to assess patients younger than 6 years. Safety was assessed in all patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01302600. FINDINGS The trial was done between Nov 18, 2010, and Oct 9, 2013. Of 198 patients screened, 165 were randomly assigned to olesoxime (n=108) or placebo (n=57). Five patients in the olesoxime group were not included in the primary outcome analysis because of an absence of post-baseline assessments. The change from baseline to month 24 on the primary outcome measure was 0·18 for olesoxime and -1·82 for placebo (treatment difference 2·00 points, 96% CI -0·25 to 4·25, p=0·0676). Olesoxime seemed to be safe and generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to placebo. The most frequent adverse events in the olesoxime group were pyrexia (n=34), cough (n=32), nasopharyngitis (n=25), and vomiting (n=25). There were two patient deaths (one in each group), but these were not deemed to be related to the study treatment. INTERPRETATION Olesoxime was safe at the doses studied, for the duration of the trial. Although the primary endpoint was not met, secondary endpoints and sensitivity analyses suggest that olesoxime might maintain motor function in patients with type 2 or type 3 SMA over a period of 24 months. Based on these results, olesoxime might provide meaningful clinical benefits for patients with SMA and, given its mode of action, might be used in combination with other drugs targeting other mechanisms of disease, although additional evidence is needed. FUNDING AFM Téléthon and Trophos SA.

Multiple Sclerosis Therapies: Molecular Mechanisms and Future

The current treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) are, by many measures, not satisfactory. The original interferon-β therapies were not necessarily based on an extensive knowledge of the pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease. As more and more insight has been acquired about the autoimmune mechanisms of MS and, in particular, the molecular targets involved, several treatment approaches have emerged. In this chapter, we highlight both promising preclinical approaches and therapies in late stage clinical trials that have been developed as a result of the improved understanding of the molecular pathophysiology of MS. These clinical stage therapies include oral agents, monoclonal antibodies, and antigen-specific therapies. Particular emphasis is given to the molecular targets when known and any safety concerns that have arisen because, despite the need for improved efficacy, MS remains a disease in which the safety of any agent remains of paramount importance.

Prerequisites to launch neuroprotective trials in Parkinson's disease: an industry perspective.

Realizing that 60% to 80% of dopaminergic nigrostriatal neurons are nonfunctional at the time of clinical diagnosis, there is an emerging consensus that disease‐modifying treatments should be initiated in the earliest stages of Parkinsons disease (PD). To date, clinical trial designs and metrics in PD have been focused on motor symptoms as the core feature of the clinical disease. To identify earlier or “pre‐motor” populations in PD, new markers have been proposed. We address the prerequisites needed to use these pre‐motor markers in clinical trials for the selection of subjects, definition of populations, and monitoring of disease progression. This may require the development of new diagnostic criteria potentially based on non‐motor clinical signs, imaging techniques, or biological features, all requiring discussion in a regulatory framework. Questions addressed include: Which steps must be taken to gain a broad consensus in the field from academic opinion leaders, patient advocacy groups, regulatory bodies, and industry? How do we prevent the selection of subgroups, which may not be representative of the full disease spectrum? Is there a way forward in personalized medicine? How do we balance risk and benefit in an at‐risk population? While many tools are available, a concerted effort is required to develop integrated data sets, as well as to achieve the necessary standardization for multicenter clinical trials. To this end, public‐private consortia (including academic centers, patient advocacy groups, and industry) will be of crucial importance to prospectively investigate and define the best tools and treatment paradigms.

A Single Dose, Randomized, Controlled Proof-Of-Mechanism Study of a Novel Vasopressin 1a Receptor Antagonist (RG7713) in High-Functioning Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder

The core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) include impaired social communication, repetitive behaviors, and restricted interests. No effective pharmacotherapy for these core deficits exists. Within the domain of social communication, the vasopressin system is implicated in social cognition and social signaling deficits of ASD, and represents a potential therapeutic target. We assessed the effects of a single 20 mg intravenous dose of the arginine vasopressin receptor 1A (V1a) antagonist, RG7713, on exploratory biomarkers (eye tracking), behavioral and clinical measures of social cognition and communication (affective speech recognition (ASR), reading the mind in the eyes, olfactory identification, scripted interaction), and safety and tolerability in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of 19 high-functioning adult male subjects with DSM-IV Autistic Disorder (age 18–45 years; full scale IQ >70; ABC-Irritability subscale ⩽13). Eye-tracking showed an increase in biological motion orienting preference with RG7713 (ES=0.8, p=0.047) and a non-significant improvement in the composite score (ES=0.2, p=0.29). RG7713 reduced ability to detect lust (ES=−0.8, p=0.03) and fear (ES=−0.7, p=0.07) in ASR. However, when all eight individual emotion subscales were combined into an overall ASR performance score, the reduction was non-significant (ES=−0.1, p=0.59). Thirteen adverse events were reported in 10 subjects; all were of mild (11/13) or moderate (2/13) severity. Although interpretation should be cautious due to multiple comparisons and small sample size, these results provide preliminary evidence from experimental and behavioral biomarkers, that blockade of the V1a receptor may improve social communication in adults with high-functioning ASD. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01474278 A Study of RO5028442 in Adult Male High-Functioning Autistic Patients. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01474278

Effect of the mGluR5-NAM Basimglurant on Behavior in Adolescents and Adults with Fragile X Syndrome in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial: FragXis Phase 2 Results

Preclinical data suggest that inhibition of the metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) receptor might hold therapeutic benefits in Fragile X syndrome (FXS). Treatment of Fmr1 knockout mice with mGluR5-negative allosteric modulators (NAMs) has been reported to correct a broad range of phenotypes related to FXS. The early short-term clinical trials with mGluR5 NAMs, including basimglurant, assessing the effects in individuals with FXS, were supportive of further exploration in larger, well-controlled trials. We evaluated basimglurant, a potent and selective mGluR5 NAM, in a 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group study of 183 adults and adolescents (aged 14–50, mean 23.4 years) with FXS. Individuals with an FMR1 full mutation were randomized to placebo or one of two doses of basimglurant. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in behavioral symptoms using the Anxiety Depression and Mood Scale (ADAMS) total score. All treatment arms showed marked behavioral improvements from baseline to week 12 with less improvement in the basimglurant 1.5 mg arm than placebo; however, basimglurant 0.5 mg was inferior to placebo in the ADAMs total score. Treatment with basimglurant was overall well-tolerated. A higher incidence of adverse events classified as psychiatric disorders were reported in patients treated with basimglurant, including three patients with hallucinations or psychosis. In this phase 2 clinical trial, basimglurant did not demonstrate improvement over placebo. Evaluation of the overall risk-benefit in younger patient populations is an important consideration for the design of potential further investigations of efficacy with this class of medications.