4.6 Article

Finding Suitable Clinical Endpoints for a Potential Treatment of a Rare Genetic Disease: the Case of ARID1B

期刊

NEUROTHERAPEUTICS
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 1300-1310

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13311-020-00868-9

关键词

ARID1B; Endpoint; Biomarkers; Electrophysiology; Executive functioning; Eye tracking; Cognition

资金

  1. Centre for Human Drug Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a lack of reliable, repeatable, and non-invasive clinical endpoints when investigating treatments for intellectual disability (ID). The aim of this study is to explore a novel approach towards developing new endpoints for neurodevelopmental disorders, in this case for ARID1B-related ID. In this study, twelve subjects with ARID1B-related ID and twelve age-matched controls were included in this observational case-control study. Subjects performed a battery of non-invasive neurobehavioral and neurophysiological assessments on two study days. Test domains included cognition, executive functioning, and eye tracking. Furthermore, several electrophysiological assessments were performed. Subjects wore a smartwatch (Withings (R) Steel HR) for 6 days. Tests were systematically assessed regarding tolerability, variability, repeatability, difference with control group, and correlation with traditional endpoints. Animal fluency, adaptive tracking, body sway, and smooth pursuit eye movements were assessed as fit-for-purpose regarding all criteria, while physical activity, heart rate, and sleep parameters show promise as well. The event-related potential waveform of the passive oddball and visual evoked potential tasks showed discriminatory ability, but EEG assessments were perceived as extremely burdensome. This approach successfully identified fit-for-purpose candidate endpoints for ARID1B-related ID and possibly for other neurodevelopmental disorders. Next, results could be replicated in different ID populations or the assessments could be included as exploratory endpoint in interventional trials in ARID1B-related ID.

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