4.1 Article

A post hoc analysis of subgroup outcomes and creatinine in the phase III clinical trial (EMPOWER) of dexpramipexole in ALS

Journal

Publisher

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/21678421.2014.943672

Keywords

Clinical trials; biomarker; mitochondria; therapy; risk

Funding

  1. Knopp Biosciences
  2. Biogen Idec

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our objective was to compare the phase II and phase III (EMPOWER) studies of dexpramipexole in ALS and evaluate potential EMPOWER responder subgroups and biomarkers based on significant inter-study population differences. In a post hoc analysis, we compared the baseline population characteristics of both dexpramipexole studies and analyzed EMPOWER efficacy outcomes and laboratory measures in subgroups defined by significant inter-study differences. Results showed that, compared with phase II, the proportion of El Escorial criteria (EEC) definite participants decreased (p = 0.005), riluzole use increased (p = 0.002), and mean symptom duration increased (p = 0.037) significantly in EMPOWER. Baseline creatinine (p < 0.001) and on-study creatinine change (p < 0.001) correlated significantly with ALSFRS-R in EMPOWER. In the EMPOWER subgroup defined by EEC-definite ALS, riluzole use, and < median symptom duration (15.3 months), dexpramipexole-treated participants had reduced ALSFRS-R slope decline (p = 0.015), decreased mortality (p = 0.011), and reduced creatinine loss (p = 0.003). In conclusion, significant differences existed between the phase II and EMPOWER study populations in ALS clinical trials of dexpramipexole. In a post hoc analysis of EMPOWER subgroups defined by these differences, potential clinical benefits of dexpramipexole were identified in the subgroup of riluzole-treated, short-symptom duration, EEC-definite ALS participants. Creatinine loss correlated with disease progression and was reduced in dexpramipexole-treated participants, suggesting it as a candidate biomarker.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available