4.6 Article

Outcomes after 8 years of eliglustat therapy for Gaucher disease type 1: Final results from the Phase 2 trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 29-38

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.25300

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sanofi Genzyme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eliglustat is a first-line oral therapy for adults with Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1) and poor, intermediate or extensive CYP2D6-metabolizer phenotypes (>90% of patients). We report the final results of a Phase 2 trial and extension (NCT00358150) in previously untreated adult GD1 patients who had splenomegaly with thrombocytopenia and/or anemia and received 50 or 100 mg eliglustat tartrate (equivalent to 42 or 84 mg eliglustat) twice daily for 8 years. In total, 19 of 26 patients completed the trial. After 8 years of eliglustat, mean spleen and liver volumes decreased by 69% and 34%, respectively. Mean hemoglobin concentration and platelet count increased by 2.2 g/dL and 113%, respectively. All patients met at least 3 of 4 therapeutic goals established for patients on long-term enzyme replacement therapy. Mean final values for patients with severe splenomegaly (n = 6), moderate-to-severe anemia (n = 6), or severe thrombocytopenia (n = 8) were similar to patients with milder disease at baseline and within long-term therapeutic goal thresholds. Biomarker median percent changes from baseline were -91% for chitotriosidase, -87% for CCL18, -92% for glucosylsphingosine, and -80% for plasma glucosylceramide. Mean lumbar spine T-score increased by 0.96, moving from the osteopenic to the normal range. Mean quality-of-life scores, mostly below normal at baseline, moved into ranges seen in healthy adults. Eliglustat was well-tolerated; 98% of adverse events were mild or moderate and 94% were considered unrelated to treatment. Clinically meaningful improvements in all parameters continued or were maintained over 8 years, with the largest margins of improvement seen in the most severely affected patients.

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