4.7 Article

A phase 2 study of eliglustat tartrate (Genz-112638), an oral substrate reduction therapy for Gaucher disease type 1

期刊

BLOOD
卷 116, 期 6, 页码 893-899

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-03-273151

关键词

-

资金

  1. Genzyme Corporation
  2. Amicus
  3. Actelion
  4. Biomarin
  5. Shire HGT
  6. Protalix

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eliglustat tartrate (Genz-112638), a specific inhibitor of glucosylceramide synthase, is under development as an oral substrate reduction therapy for Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1). A multinational, open-label, single-arm phase 2 study of 26 GD1 patients (16 female, 10 male; mean age, 34 years) evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of eliglustat tartrate administered twice daily by mouth at 50- or 100-mg doses based on plasma drug concentrations. Entry criteria required splenomegaly with thrombocytopenia and/or anemia. The composite primary efficacy end point required improvement after 52 weeks in at least 2 of these 3 disease manifestations and was met by 77% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 58%-89%) of all patients and 91% (95% CI = 72%-98%) of the 22 patients completing 52 weeks. Statistically significant improvements occurred in mean hemoglobin level (1.62 g/dL; 95% CI = 1.05-2.18 g/dL), platelet count (40.3%; 95% CI = 23.7-57.0 g/dL), spleen volume (-38.5%; 95% CI = -43.5%--33.5%), liver volume (-17.0%; 95% CI = -21.6%-12.3%), and lumbar spine bone mineral density (0.31 Z-score; 95% CI = 0.09-0.53). Elevated biomarkers (chitotriosidase; chemokine CCL18; angiotensin-converting enzyme; tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase) decreased by 35% to 50%. Plasma glucosylceramide and ganglioside GM3 normalized. Eliglustat tartrate was well tolerated: 7 mild, transient adverse events in 6 patients were considered treatment-related. Individual pharmacokinetics varied; mean time to maximal observed concentration was 2.3 hours and mean half-life was 6.8 hours. Eliglustat tartrate appears to be a promising oral treatment for GD1.

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

4.7
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