4.4 Article

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of moss-aGalactosidase A in patients with Fabry disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF INHERITED METABOLIC DISEASE
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 527-533

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jimd.12052

关键词

Agalsidase; alpha-galactosidase; Fabry disease; mannose receptor; moss; Physcomitrella

资金

  1. Greenovation Biotech GmbH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Moss-aGalactosidase A (moss-aGal) is a moss-derived version of human -galactosidase developed for enzyme replacement therapy in patients with Fabry disease. It exhibits a homogenous N-glycosylation profile with >90% mannose-terminated glycans. In contrast to mammalian cell produced -galactosidase, moss-aGal does not rely on mannose-6-phosphate receptor mediated endocytosis but targets the mannose receptor for tissue uptake. We conducted a phase 1 clinical trial with moss-aGal in six patients with confirmed diagnosis of Fabry disease during a 28-day schedule. All patients received a single dose of 0.2 mg/kg moss-aGal by i.v.-infusion. Primary endpoints of the trial were safety and pharmacokinetics; secondary endpoints were pharmacodynamics by analyzing urine and plasma Gb3 and lyso-Gb3 concentrations. In all patients, the administered single dose was well tolerated. No safety issues were observed. Pharmacokinetic data revealed a stable nonlinear profile with a short plasma half-life of moss-aGal of 14minutes. After one single dose of moss-aGal, urinary Gb3 concentrations decreased up to 23% 7 days and up to 60% 28days post-dose. Plasma concentrations of lyso-Gb3 decreased by 3.8% and of Gb3 by 11% 28days post-dose. These data reveal that a single dose of moss-aGal was safe, well tolerated, and led to a prolonged reduction of Gb3 excretion. As previously shown, moss-aGal is taken up via the mannose receptor, which is expressed on macrophages but also on endothelial and kidney cells. Thus, these data indicate that moss-aGal may target kidney cells. After these promising results, phase 2/3 clinical trials are in preparation.

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

4.4
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