4.1 Article

A post-hoc subgroup analysis of outcomes in the first phase III clinical study of edaravone (MCI-186) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21678421.2017.1363780

Keywords

Amyotrophie lateral sclerosis (ALS); edaravone; subgroup analysis; revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R); MCI-186

Funding

  1. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation
  2. Intramural Research Grant for Neurological Psychiatric Disorders from the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry (NCNP)
  3. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our first phase III study failed to demonstrate efficacy of edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) compared to placebo. Here, we performed post-hoc subgroup analysis to identify a subgroup in which edaravone might be expected to show efficacy. We focussed on two newly defined subgroups, EESP and dpEESP2y. The EESP was defined as the efficacy expected subpopulation with % forced vital capacity of >= 80%, and >= 2 points for all item scores in the revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R) score before treatment. The dpEESP2y was defined as the greater-efficacy-expected subpopulation within EESP having a diagnosis of 'definite' or 'probable' ALS according to the El Escorial revised Airlie House diagnostic criteria and onset of disease within two years. The primary endpoint of the post-hoc analysis was the change in the ALSFRS-R score during the 24-week treatment period. The intergroup differences of the least-squares mean change in the ALSFRS-R score +/- standard error during treatment were 0.65+ 0.78 (p = 0.4108) in the full analysis set, 2.20 1.03 (p= 0.0360) in the EESP, and 3.01 +/- 1.33 (p 0.0270) in the dpEESP2y. Edaravone exhibited efficacy in the dpEESP2y subgroup. A further clinical study in patients meeting dpEESP2y criteria is warranted.

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