4.7 Article

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of hydroxyurea in spinal muscular atrophy

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 75, 期 24, 页码 2190-2197

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182020332

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan [DOH96-TD-I-111-TM013]
  2. Sun's KMU-SMA fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxyurea (HU) in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Methods: Twenty-eight patients with type 2 SMA and 29 patients with type 3 SMA were randomly assigned (2: 1) to receive HU or matching placebo for 18 months. HU was initiated at 10 mg/kg/day with an 8-week titration to 20 mg/kg/day. Subjects were assessed at baseline (T0) and monthly for the first 2 months (T1-T2) and then every 2 months throughout treatment (T3-T10) and posttreatment periods (T11-T13). The primary outcome measures were the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), Manual Muscle Test (MMT), and serum full-length survivor motor neuron (flSMN) mRNA. The secondary outcome measures were Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale and forced vital capacity (FVC). Results: Fifty-five patients completed this trial, which lasted from March 2007 to June 2009. Except for neutropenia, we found no differences in adverse events between the 2 groups. Compared with the placebo group, the HU group had -1.88 for GMFM (p = 0.11), -0.55 for MMT (p = 0.49), and 2.17 for flSMN mRNA (p = 0.13). Similarly, we found no difference in mean improvement of the secondary endpoints. Both groups had a trend toward a decline in FVC with little change in strength and motor function. Conclusion: Under the current regimen and schedule, HU brought about no improvement in patients with type 2 and 3 SMA, and its main side effect was neutropenia. Classification of evidence: This trial provides Class I evidence that HU 20 mg/kg/day does not effectively treat SMA. Neurology (R) 2010;75:2190-2197

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据