4.5 Article

ATON: Results from a Phase II randomized trial of the B-cell-targeting agent atacicept in patients with optic neuritis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 351, 期 1-2, 页码 174-178

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2015.02.019

关键词

Optic neuritis; Multiple sclerosis; Optical coherence tomography; Retinal nerve fiber layer; Clinically definite multiple sclerosis; Atacicept

资金

  1. Merck Serono SA Geneva, Switzerland of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
  2. EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, Massachusetts, USA of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 36-week ATON study compared the efficacy and safety of atacicept with matching placebo in 34 patients with unilateral optic neuritis as a clinically isolated syndrome. Atacicept (150 mg) was administered twice weekly for 4 weeks (loading period), then once weekly for 32 weelcs. The ATON study was terminated prematurely by the sponsor when an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board review observed increased multiple sclerosis (MS)-related disease activity in the atacicept arms of the concurrent ATAcicept in MS (ATAMS) study. Analysis of the prematurely terminated ATON study showed that the mean (standard deviation) change from baseline in retinal nerve fiber layer thickness at last observed value in the affected eye was -8.6 (10.1) pm in patients treated with atacicept (n = 15) compared with 17.3 (152) pm in patients treated with placebo (n = 16). In the atacicept treatment group, a higher proportion of patients converted to clinically definite MS during the double-blind period compared with placebo (35.3% [6/17] vs 17.6% [3/17]. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across both treatment groups in the double-blind period. A dichotomy emerged with more atacicept-treated patients converting to relapsing-remitting MS compared with placebo-treated patients, despite the same patients experiencing less axonal loss after an optic neuritis event. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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