4.1 Article

Tetrabenazine Versus Deutetrabenazine for Huntington's Disease: Twins or Distant Cousins?

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 582-585

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.12483

关键词

deutetrabenazine; Huntington's disease; indirect comparison; meta-analysis; tetrabenazine

资金

  1. TEVA
  2. CHDI Foundation
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. Grunenthal
  5. Fundacao MSD (Portugal)
  6. MSD
  7. Allergan
  8. Ipsen
  9. Novartis
  10. Medtronic
  11. Medical Research Council
  12. GlaxoSmithKline Foundation
  13. UCL Consultants Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of UCL
  14. MRC [MR/M008592/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  15. Medical Research Council [MR/M008592/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundTetrabenazine is the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for Huntington's disease, and deutetrabenazine was recently tested against placebo. A switching-trial from tetrabenazine to deutetrabenazine is underway, but no head-to-head, blinded, randomized controlled trial is planned. Using meta-analytical methodology, the authors compared these molecules. MethodsRCTs comparing tetrabenazine or deutetrabenazine with placebo in Huntington's disease were searched. The authors assessed the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, calculated indirect treatment comparisons, and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. ResultsThe evidence network for this report comprised 1 tetrabenazine trial and 1 deutetrabenazine trial, both against placebo. Risk of bias was moderate in both. Participants in the tetrabenazine and deutetrabenazine trials did not differ significantly on motor scores or adverse events. Depression and somnolence scales significantly favored deutetrabenazine. ConclusionThere is low-quality evidence that tetrabenazine and deutetrabenazine do not differ in efficacy or safety. It is important to note that these results are likely to remain the only head-to-head comparison between these 2 compounds in Huntington's disease.

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

4.1
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