4.6 Article

Pilot trial of inosine to elevate urate levels in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

期刊

ANNALS OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL NEUROLOGY
卷 5, 期 12, 页码 1522-1533

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acn3.671

关键词

-

资金

  1. Salah Foundation
  2. MGH ALS Therapy Fund
  3. Harvard NeuroDiscovery Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To test the safety, tolerability, and urate-elevating capability of the urate precursor inosine taken orally or by feeding tube in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Methods This was a pilot, open-label trial in 25 participants with ALS. Treatment duration was 12 weeks. The dose of inosine was titrated at pre-specified time points to elevate serum urate levels to 7-8 mg/dL. Primary outcomes were safety (as assessed by the occurrence of adverse events [AEs]) and tolerability (defined as the ability to complete the 12-week study on study drug). Secondary outcomes included biomarkers of oxidative stress and damage. As an exploratory analysis, observed outcomes were compared with a virtual control arm built using prediction algorithms to estimate ALSFRS-R scores. Results Twenty-four out of 25 participants (96%) completed 12 weeks of study drug treatment. One participant was unable to comply with study visits and was lost to follow-up. Serum urate rose to target levels in 6 weeks. No serious AEs attributed to study drug and no AEs of special concern, such as urolithiasis and gout, occurred. Selected biomarkers of oxidative stress and damage had significant changes during the study period. Observed changes in ALSFRS-R did not differ from baseline predictions. Interpretation Inosine appeared safe, well tolerated, and effective in raising serum urate levels in people with ALS. These findings, together with epidemiological observations and preclinical data supporting a neuroprotective role of urate in ALS models, provide the rationale for larger clinical trials testing inosine as a potential disease-modifying therapy for ALS.

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

4.6
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