Suppr超能文献

用于杜氏肌营养不良症药物评估的外部对照的适宜性。

Suitability of external controls for drug evaluation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

机构信息

From the University Hospitals Leuven (N.G.), Child Neurology, Belgium; Analysis Group, Inc (J.S., G.S., Z.Y.), Boston; Collaborative Trajectory Analysis Project (J.S., S.J.W.), Cambridge, MA; Children's National Medical Center (H.G.-D.), Research Center for Genetic Medicine, Washington, DC; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Pediatrics (C.M.M.), University of California, Davis, Sacramento; Department of Physical Therapy (K.V.), University of Florida, Gainesville; CureDuchenne (D.M.), Newport Beach, CA; and Department of Pediatric Neurology (E.M.), Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Neurology. 2020 Sep 8;95(10):e1381-e1391. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010170. Epub 2020 Jul 1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the suitability of real-world data (RWD) and natural history data (NHD) for use as external controls in drug evaluations for ambulatory Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).

METHODS

The consistency of changes in the 6-minute walk distance (Δ6MWD) was assessed across multiple clinical trial placebo arms and sources of NHD/RWD. Six placebo arms reporting 48-week Δ6MWD were identified via literature review and represented 4 sets of inclusion/exclusion criteria (n = 383 patients in total). Five sources of RWD/NHD were contributed by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, DMD Italian Group, The Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group, ImagingDMD, and the PRO-DMD-01 study (n = 430 patients, in total). Mean Δ6MWD was compared between each placebo arm and RWD/NHD source after subjecting the latter to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the trial for baseline age, ambulatory function, and steroid use. Baseline covariate adjustment was investigated in a subset of patients with available data.

RESULTS

Analyses included ∼1,200 patient-years of follow-up. Differences in mean Δ6MWD between trial placebo arms and RWD/NHD cohorts ranged from -19.4 m (i.e., better outcomes in RWD/NHD) to 19.5 m (i.e., worse outcomes in RWD/NHD) and were not statistically significant before or after covariate adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that Δ6MWD was consistent between placebo arms and RWD/NHD subjected to equivalent inclusion/exclusion criteria. No evidence for systematic bias was detected. These findings are encouraging for the use of RWD/NHD to augment, or possibly replace, placebo controls in DMD trials. Multi-institution collaboration through the Collaborative Trajectory Analysis Project rendered this study feasible.

摘要

目的

评估真实世界数据(RWD)和自然史数据(NHD)在评估门诊型杜氏肌营养不良症(DMD)药物中的作为外部对照的适用性。

方法

通过文献回顾和 NHD/RWD 来源的 5 个数据集,确定了 6 个报告 48 周 6 分钟步行距离(Δ6MWD)变化的安慰剂组,共涉及 4 套纳入/排除标准(共 383 例患者)。由 Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven、DMD 意大利组、合作国际神经肌肉研究组、ImagingDMD 和 PRO-DMD-01 研究提供的 5 个 RWD/NHD 来源(共 430 例患者)。将后者纳入试验的纳入/排除标准后,比较每个安慰剂组与 RWD/NHD 来源的平均Δ6MWD,包括基线年龄、步行功能和类固醇使用。在具有可用数据的患者亚组中研究了基线协变量调整。

结果

分析包括约 1200 患者年的随访。在协变量调整前后,试验安慰剂组和 RWD/NHD 队列之间的平均Δ6MWD 差异从-19.4m(即 RWD/NHD 中结果更好)到 19.5m(即 RWD/NHD 中结果更差)不等,且无统计学意义。

结论

我们发现,在符合等效纳入/排除标准的情况下,安慰剂组与 RWD/NHD 之间的Δ6MWD 是一致的。未发现系统性偏差的证据。这些发现令人鼓舞,可利用 RWD/NHD 来增强或可能替代 DMD 试验中的安慰剂对照。通过合作轨迹分析项目的多机构合作使得这项研究成为可能。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a4bb/7538219/05d7925fa974/NEUROLOGY2019032615FF1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验