Search

Moebius syndrome is a collection of orofacial anomalies with highly variable features affecting many different systems but characterised by bilateral facial palsy and absent eye abduction. We largely regard Moebius syndrome as a diagnosis of exclusion. Lack of awareness and knowledge means that children often fall between services, leading to treatment delays and difficulty interfacing with social care and schools, with long-term impact on physical health and psychosocial development. We developed a multidisciplinary team comprising core clinicians (lead physician, geneticist, speech and language therapist, psychologist and specialist nurse) and an expanded group to encompass the other affected systems. The interactions between our specialties lead to the development of a treatment protocol, which we present. The protocol harnesses the aspects of care of children with a range of other rare diseases at a specialised paediatric centre and synthesises them into a holistic approach for MBS and related conditions. Management is sequenced on an "ABC-style" basis, with airway, feeding, vision and speech taking priority in the early years. We define management priorities as airway stabilisation with swallow assessment, ocular surface protection and maintenance of nutritional support. Management principles for issues such as speech, reflux, drooling and sleep issues are outlined. In later years, psychological support has a prominent role geared towards monitoring and interventions for low mood, self-esteem and bullying.

Background: Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common childhood muscular dystrophy, is caused by dystrophin deficiency. Preclinical and phase 2 study data have suggested that givinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, might help to counteract the effects of this deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of givinostat in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy., Methods: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 41 tertiary care sites in 11 countries. Eligible participants were ambulant, male, and aged at least 6 years, had a genetically confirmed diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, completed two four-stair climb assessments with a mean of 8 s or less (≤1 s variance), had a time-to-rise of at least 3 s but less than 10 s, and had received systemic corticosteroids for at least 6 months. Participating boys were randomly assigned (2:1, allocated according to a list generated by the interactive response technology provider) to receive either oral givinostat or matching placebo twice a day for 72 weeks, stratified by concomitant steroid use. Boys, investigators, and site and sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment. The dose was flexible, based on weight, and was reduced if not tolerated. Boys were divided into two groups on the basis of their baseline vastus lateralis fat fraction (VLFF; measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy): group A comprised boys with a VLFF of more than 5% but no more than 30%, whereas group B comprised boys with a VLFF of 5% or less, or more than 30%. The primary endpoint compared the effects of givinostat and placebo on the change in results of the four-stair climb assessment between baseline and 72 weeks, in the intention-to-treat, group A population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned boys who received at least one dose of study drug. When the first 50 boys in group A completed 12 months of treatment, an interim futility assessment was conducted, after which the sample size was adapted using masked data from the four-stair climb assessments. Furthermore, the starting dose of givinostat was reduced following a protocol amendment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02851797, and is complete., Findings: Between June 6, 2017, and Feb 22, 2022, 359 boys were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 179 were enrolled into the study (median age 9·8 years [IQR 8·1-11·0]), all of whom were randomly assigned (118 to receive givinostat and 61 to receive placebo); 170 (95%) boys completed the study. Of the 179 boys enrolled, 120 (67%) were in group A (81 givinostat and 39 placebo); of these, 114 (95%) completed the study. For participants in group A, comparing the results of the four-stair climb assessment at 72 weeks and baseline, the geometric least squares mean ratio was 1·27 (95% CI 1·17-1·37) for boys receiving givinostat and 1·48 (1·32-1·66) for those receiving placebo (ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·745-0·989; p=0·035). The most common adverse events in the givinostat group were diarrhoea (43 [36%] of 118 boys vs 11 [18%] of 61 receiving placebo) and vomiting (34 [29%] vs 8 [13%]); no treatment-related deaths occurred., Interpretation: Among ambulant boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, results of the four-stair climb assessment worsened in both groups over the study period; however, the decline was significantly smaller with givinostat than with placebo. The dose of givinostat was reduced after an interim safety analysis, but no new safety signals were reported. An ongoing extension study is evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of givinostat in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy., Funding: Italfarmaco., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EM declares payment or honoraria for lectures and symposia from Sarepta Therapeutics, PTC Therapeutics, and Roche; and participation on advisory boards for Sarepta Therapeutics, NS Pharma, Santhera, PTC Therapeutics, Roche, Pfizer, WAVE Life Sciences, Italfarmaco, and Dyne Therapeutics, all outside the scope of this manuscript. JJV declares grants from PTC Therapeutics; consulting fees from Santhera, Sarepta Therapeutics, and PTC Therapeutics; and payment for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from PTC Therapeutics, all outside the scope of this manuscript. OB-T declares grants to her institution from Roche, Novartis, Biogen, Genethon, and Metafora Biosystems; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Novartis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Minoryx Therapeutics; and unpaid leadership roles with AFM-Téléthon (scientific board president) and Société Francophone de Neurogenetique, all outside the scope of this manuscript. CMZ declares grants or contracts from Biogen and Novartis; consulting fees from Sarepta Therapeutics; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Sarepta Therapeutics and Optum; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Sarepta Therapeutics and Optum; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Sarepta Therapeutics, all outside the scope of this manuscript. JKM declares research grants to her institution from Italfarmaco, Biogen, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer, PTC Therapeutics, ReveraGen Biopharma, Roche, Sarepta Therapeutics, and Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation, all outside the scope of this manuscript. NG declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Biogen; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pfizer, Biogen, and WAVE Life Sciences, all outside the scope of this manuscript. WM-F declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Biogen, Roche, Sarepta Therapeutics, Sanofi-Aventis, and Novartis; payment to his institution for expert testimony from Astellas Pharma; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with payment to himself from PTC Therapeutics, Roche, and Novartis, and to his institution from Astellas Pharma; and unpaid leadership roles for the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Muskelkranke and Glykogenose Deutschland, all outside the scope of this manuscript. EHN declares grants to his institution from Pfizer and PTC Therapeutics; and consulting fees to his institution from Pfizer, Edgewise Therapeutics, Sarepta Therapeutics, Epirium Bio, Regenxbio, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, all outside the scope of this manuscript. US-S declares consulting fees from Santhera, PTC Therapeutics, Sarepta Therapeutics, and Pfizer, all outside the scope of this manuscript. EB declares participation on advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche, Biogen, and Novartis, all outside the scope of this manuscript. GPC declares payment for a lecture from Biogen; participation on advisory boards for PTC Therapeutics, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme; and an unpaid leadership role (president) of the Italian Association of Myology, all outside the scope of this manuscript. KDM declares grants to her institution from Italfarmaco, Sarepta Therapeutics, PTC Therapeutics, FibroGen, Capricor Therapeutics, Pfizer, Edgewise Therapeutics, Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health; an honorarium to cover travel costs from the Muscular Dystrophy Association; reimbursement to her institution of support to attend meetings and/or travel from the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Dyne Therapeutics, NS Pharma, TRiNDS, and Sarepta Therapeutics; and payment to her institution for participation in a grant review board for the Muscular Dystrophy Association, all outside the scope of this manuscript. LS declares grants to his institution from Roche, Novartis, Biogen, Sysnav Healthcare, Zentech, and Perkin Elmer; consulting fees from Pfizer, Santhera, Dynacure, Dyne Therapeutics, Audentes Therapeutics, Zentech, Sarepta Therapeutics, Roche, Novartis, Biohaven, Biogen Digital Health, Scholar Rock, Regenexbio, and Evox Therapeutics; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Biogen, and Novartis; payment for expert testimony from Audentes Therapeutics; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for FibroGen, Lupin Therapeutics, and Illumina; and unpaid leadership roles for the World Muscle Society, SMA Europe, and the Association Belge contre les Maladies neuro-Musculaires , all outside the scope of this manuscript. KV declares a research service agreement for the current clinical trial. Outside of this manuscript, she declares grants from the National Institutes of Health; and research service support from Sarepta Therapeutics, Catabasis Pharmaceuticals, PTC Therapeutics, Summit Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, ML Bio/VCU, and Edgewise Therapeutics, all directed to the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. JJ declares consulting fees from Biogen, AveXis, Sarepta Therapeutics, and Roche; and receipt of travel and speaker fees from PTC Therapeutics, all outside the scope of this manuscript. SM declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Biogen, and Novartis, all outside the scope of this manuscript. SS declares payments for participation in ad-hoc advisory boards for PTC Medical, Sarepta Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Roche; and payment for chairing a symposium sponsored by Sarepta Therapeutics at the British Neuropsychiatry Association 2019 annual meeting, all outside the scope of this manuscript. LM declares study funding and payments to her institution for provision of study materials in the current clinical trial. Outside the current manuscript she declares grants to her institution from Anavex Life Sciences. KS declares grants or contracts from Biogen (principal investigator and clinical trial site for a nusinersen study), ReveraGen-Santhera (principal investigator for a vamorolone study), and PTC Therapeutics (principal investigator for an ataluren study); payment to her institution from Roche for a teaching and educational seminar on spinal muscular atrophy; an honorarium from Novartis for a TREAT NMD talk on spinal muscular atrophy; and attendance at advisory boards for Biogen and Roche (including travel), all outside the scope of this manuscript. CGL declares contracts (as principal investigator) from Sarepta Therapeutics, Dyne Therapeutics, Avidity Biosciences, FibroGen, Scholar Rock, and Biohaven; consulting fees from Sarepta Therapeutics (payments to her institution), NS Pharma (payments to herself), and Avidity (payments to her institution and to herself); payments for participation in a speakers bureau from Biogen; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from the Muscular Dystrophy Association, CureCMD, and CureSMA, all outside the scope of this manuscript. KC declares payments directly to KJC Statistics for statistical support of the current trial. SC, NC, and PB are employees of Italfarmaco, the sponsor of the current trial. CMM reports receiving grants or research support from Astellas Pharma, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Capricor Therapeutics, Catabasis Pharmaceuticals, Edgewise Therapeutics, Italfarmaco, Pfizer, PTC Therapeutics, and Santhera Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Sarepta Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Avidity Biosciences, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squib, Capricor Therapeutics, Catabasis Pharmaceuticals, Edgewise Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Epirium Bio, Entrada Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Halo Therapeutics, Italfarmaco, Novartis, PepGen, Pfizer, PTC Therapeutics, Prosensa, and Santhera Pharmaceuticals, all outside the scope of this manuscript. BB and GZ declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Vamorolone is a dissociative agonist of the glucocorticoid receptor that has shown similar efficacy and reduced safety concerns in comparison with prednisone in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of vamorolone over 48 weeks and to study crossover participants (prednisone to vamorolone; placebo to vamorolone)., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and prednisone-controlled clinical trial of 2 doses of vamorolone was conducted in participants with DMD, in the ages from 4 years to younger than 7 years at baseline. The interventions were 2 mg/kg/d of vamorolone and 6 mg/kg/d of vamorolone for 48 weeks (period 1: 24 weeks + period 2: 24 weeks) and 0.75 mg/kg/d of prednisone and placebo for the first 24 weeks (before crossover). Efficacy was evaluated through gross motor outcomes and safety through adverse events, growth velocity, body mass index (BMI), and bone turnover biomarkers. This analysis focused on period 2., Results: A total of 121 participants with DMD were randomized. Vamorolone at a dose of 6 mg/kg/d showed maintenance of improvement for all motor outcomes to week 48 (e.g., for primary outcome, time to stand from supine [TTSTAND] velocity, week 24 least squares mean [LSM] [SE] 0.052 [0.0130] rises/s vs week 48 LSM [SE] 0.0446 [0.0138]). After 48 weeks, vamorolone at a dose of 2 mg/kg/d showed similar improvements as 6 mg/kg/d for North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) (vamorolone 6 mg/kg/d-vamorolone 2 mg/kg/d LSM [SE] 0.49 [1.14]; 95% CI -1.80 to 2.78, p = 0.67), but less improvement for other motor outcomes. The placebo to vamorolone 6 mg/kg/d group showed rapid improvements after 20 weeks of treatment approaching benefit seen with 48-week 6 mg/kg/d of vamorolone treatment for TTSTAND, time to run/walk 10 m, and NSAA. There was significant improvement in linear growth after crossover in the prednisone to vamorolone 6 mg/kg/d group, and rapid reversal of prednisone-induced decline in bone turnover biomarkers in both crossover groups. There was an increase in BMI after 24 weeks of treatment that then stabilized for both vamorolone groups., Discussion: Improvements of motor outcomes seen with 6 mg/kg/d of vamorolone at 24 weeks of treatment were maintained to 48 weeks of treatment. Vamorolone at a dose of 6 mg/kg/d showed better maintenance of effect compared with vamorolone at a dose of 2 mg/kg/d for most (3/5) motor outcomes. Bone morbidities of prednisone (stunting of growth and declines in serum bone biomarkers) were reversed when treatment transitioned to vamorolone., Trial Registration Information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03439670., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that for boys with DMD, the efficacy of vamorolone at a dose of 6 mg/kg/d was maintained over 48 weeks.

Background: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a progressive neuromuscular disease caused by mutations in Survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, leading to reduction in survival motor neuron protein (SMN), key for motor neuron survival and function in the brainstem and spinal cord. Risdiplam is an orally administered SMN2-splicing modifier which increases production of functional SMN protein. Risdiplam was offered in the UK under early access to medicines scheme (EAMS) to SMA type 1 and 2 patients aged 2 months and older, not suitable for authorised treatments from September 2020 to December 2021., Objective: To describe the largest paediatric European real-world set of data on patients' characteristics and short-term safety for risdiplam in Great Britain through EAMS., Methods: We collated data from SMA REACH UK a national clinical and research network for all patients enrolled onto EAMS and assessed all submitted adverse events., Results: Of the 92 patients; 78% were Type 2 SMA, mean age 10.9 years, range 0-17 years. 56 were treatment naïve, 33 previously treated; of these 25 had received nusinersen, 3 previous treatment unknown. Sixty adverse events (AEs) were reported occurring in 34 patients. The commonest were respiratory tract infections and gastrointestinal disturbance. Four life-threatening events were reported with 2 deaths and permanent cessation of risdiplam in 3 patients.Overall, 38/60 AEs were considered unrelated to risdiplam, 10/60 related to risdiplam and for 12/60 causality not specified., Conclusions: This study found a safety profile similar to clinical trials with no new safety concerns identified. With the restricted eligibility of onasemnogene abeparvovec and complications of nusinersen administration, EAMS allowed access or continued treatment to naïve patients or patients no longer suitable for approved medications. Collection of longitudinal data for this complex population is needed, to provide greater insights into risdiplam's role in addressing patients' needs into the future.

Background: Drug repurposing could provide novel treatment options for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Because tamoxifen-an oestrogen receptor regulator-reduced signs of muscular pathology in a Duchenne muscular dystrophy mouse model, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of tamoxifen in humans as an adjunct to corticosteroid therapy over a period of 48 weeks., Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 12 study centres in seven European countries. We enrolled ambulant boys aged 6·5-12·0 years with a genetically confirmed diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and who were on stable corticosteroid treatment for more than 6 months. Exclusion criteria included ophthalmological disorders, including cataracts, and haematological disorders. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants using an online randomisation tool to either 20 mg tamoxifen orally per day or matched placebo, stratified by centre and corticosteroid intake. Participants, caregivers, and clinical investigators were masked to treatment assignments. Tamoxifen was taken in addition to standard care with corticosteroids, and participants attended study visits for examinations every 12 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline to week 48 in scores on the D1 domain of the Motor Function Measure in the intention-to-treat population (defined as all patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria and began treatment). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03354039) and is completed., Findings: Between May 24, 2018, and Oct 14, 2020, 95 boys were screened for inclusion, and 82 met inclusion criteria and were initially enrolled into the study. Three boys were excluded after initial screening due to cataract diagnosis or revoked consent directly after screening, but before randomisation. A further boy assigned to the placebo group did not begin treatment. Therefore, 40 individuals assigned tamoxifen and 38 allocated placebo were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary efficacy outcome did not differ significantly between tamoxifen (-3·05%, 95% CI -7·02 to 0·91) and placebo (-6·15%, -9·19 to -3·11; 2·90% difference, -3·02 to 8·82, p=0·33). Severe adverse events occurred in two participants: one participant who received tamoxifen had a fall, and one who received placebo suffered a panic attack. No deaths or life-threatening serious adverse events occurred. Viral infections were the most common adverse events., Interpretation: Tamoxifen was safe and well tolerated, but no difference between groups was reported for the primary efficacy endpoint. Slower disease progression, defined by loss of motor function over time, was indicated in the tamoxifen group compared with the placebo group, but differences in outcome measures were neither clinically nor statistically significant. Currently, we cannot recommend the use of tamoxifen in daily clinical practice as a treatment option for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy due to insufficient clinical evidence., Funding: Thomi Hopf Foundation, ERA-Net, Swiss National Science Foundation, Duchenne UK, Joining Jack, Duchenne Parent Project, Duchenne Parent Project Spain, Fondation Suisse de Recherche sur les Maladies Musculaires, Association Monegasque contre les Myopathies., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DF is principal investigator for studies on spinal muscular atrophy sponsored by Hofmann–La Roche. US-S is a consultant for Santhera, PTC Therapeutics, Sarepta, and Pfizer. ND is a consultant for Roche and Novartis and received payment for lectures from Roche. ANO received payment for lectures from Sarepta, Novartis, Biogen, PTC Therapeutics, and Roche and support for attending meetings from PTC Therapeutics, Roche, and Biogen. VL is a consultant for Axelys, Roche, Avexis, and Biogen and received payment for lectures from Biogen, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, PTC Therapeutics, and Sarepta. VL received support of attending meetings from Novartis, Pfizer, and Biogen and participated in advisory boards for Novartis, Roche, Biogen, and PTC Therapeutics. StS is a consultant for Sarepta, PCT, Roche, WAVE, Pfizer, and Avexis and received payment for lectures from Sarepta. All other authors declare no competing interests. All study sites received payment for study set up and study visits., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Multi-systemic smooth muscle dysfunction syndrome (MSMDS) is extremely rare and can manifest in multiple ways. Associated hydrocephalus has not yet been reported. Here, we report a three-year-old girl with communicating hydrocephalus and raised intracranial pressure secondary to MSMDS. Pathological mechanisms are proposed, as is the need to investigate patients diagnosed with MSMDS for ventriculomegaly and raised pressure., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Importance: Corticosteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely prescribed but long-term use shows adverse effects that detract from patient quality of life., Objective: To determine if vamorolone, a structurally unique dissociative steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is able to retain efficacy while reducing safety concerns with use in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo- and prednisone-controlled 24-week clinical trial, conducted from June 29, 2018, to February 24, 2021, with 24 weeks of follow-up. This was a multicenter study (33 referral centers in 11 countries) and included boys 4 to younger than 7 years of age with genetically confirmed DMD not previously treated with corticosteroids., Interventions: The study included 4 groups: placebo; prednisone, 0.75 mg/kg per day; vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day; and vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day., Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes monitored (1) efficacy, which included motor outcomes (primary: time to stand from supine velocity in the vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, group vs placebo; secondary: time to stand from supine velocity [vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day], 6-minute walk distance, time to run/walk 10 m [vamorolone, 2 and 6 mg/kg per day]; exploratory: NorthStar Ambulatory Assessment, time to climb 4 stairs) and (2) safety, which included growth, bone biomarkers, and a corticotropin (ACTH)-challenge test., Results: Among the 133 boys with DMD enrolled in the study (mean [SD] age, 5.4 [0.9] years), 121 were randomly assigned to treatment groups, and 114 completed the 24-week treatment period. The trial met the primary end point for change from baseline to week 24 time to stand velocity for vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day (least-squares mean [SE] velocity, 0.05 [0.01] m/s vs placebo -0.01 [0.01] m/s; 95% CI, 0.02-0.10; P = .002) and the first 4 sequential secondary end points: time to stand velocity, vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day, vs placebo; 6-minute walk test, vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, vs placebo; 6-minute walk test, vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day, vs placebo; and time to run/walk 10 m velocity, vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, vs placebo. Height percentile declined in prednisone-treated (not vamorolone-treated) participants (change from baseline [SD]: prednisone, -1.88 [8.81] percentile vs vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, +3.86 [6.16] percentile; P = .02). Bone turnover markers declined with prednisone but not with vamorolone. Boys with DMD at baseline showed low ACTH-stimulated cortisol and high incidence of adrenal insufficiency. All 3 treatment groups led to increased adrenal insufficiency., Conclusions and Relevance: In this pivotal randomized clinical trial, vamorolone was shown to be effective and safe in the treatment of boys with DMD over a 24-week treatment period. Vamorolone may be a safer alternative than prednisone in this disease, in which long-term corticosteroid use is the standard of care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03439670.

Importance: Corticosteroids improve strength and function in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, there is uncertainty regarding the optimum regimen and dosage., Objective: To compare efficacy and adverse effects of the 3 most frequently prescribed corticosteroid regimens in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, parallel-group randomized clinical trial including 196 boys aged 4 to 7 years with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who had not previously been treated with corticosteroids; enrollment occurred between January 30, 2013, and September 17, 2016, at 32 clinic sites in 5 countries. The boys were assessed for 3 years (last participant visit on October 16, 2019)., Interventions: Participants were randomized to daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg) (n = 65), daily deflazacort (0.90 mg/kg) (n = 65), or intermittent prednisone (0.75 mg/kg for 10 days on and then 10 days off) (n = 66)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The global primary outcome comprised 3 end points: rise from the floor velocity (in rise/seconds), forced vital capacity (in liters), and participant or parent global satisfaction with treatment measured by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM; score range, 0 to 100), each averaged across all study visits after baseline. Pairwise group comparisons used a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .017., Results: Among the 196 boys randomized (mean age, 5.8 years [SD, 1.0 years]), 164 (84%) completed the trial. Both daily prednisone and daily deflazacort were more effective than intermittent prednisone for the primary outcome (P < .001 for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone using a global test; P = .017 for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone using a global test) and the daily regimens did not differ significantly (P = .38 for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort using a global test). The between-group differences were principally attributable to rise from the floor velocity (0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.08 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone [P = .003]; 0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.09 rise/s] for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone [P = .017]; and -0.004 rise/s [98.3% CI, -0.03 to 0.02 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort [P = .75]). The pairwise comparisons for forced vital capacity and TSQM global satisfaction subscale score were not statistically significant. The most common adverse events were abnormal behavior (22 [34%] in the daily prednisone group, 25 [38%] in the daily deflazacort group, and 24 [36%] in the intermittent prednisone group), upper respiratory tract infection (24 [37%], 19 [29%], and 24 [36%], respectively), and vomiting (19 [29%], 17 [26%], and 15 [23%])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, treatment with daily prednisone or daily deflazacort, compared with intermittent prednisone alternating 10 days on and 10 days off, resulted in significant improvement over 3 years in a composite outcome comprising measures of motor function, pulmonary function, and satisfaction with treatment; there was no significant difference between the 2 daily corticosteroid regimens. The findings support the use of a daily corticosteroid regimen over the intermittent prednisone regimen tested in this study as initial treatment for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01603407.

Objective: To determine whether a combination of 2 heart medications would be tolerated and could prevent/delay the onset of cardiomyopathy in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) compared with placebo., Methods: This multicenter, parallel group, 1:1 patient randomized, placebo-controlled study of prophylactic perindopril and bisoprolol recruited boys with DMD aged 5-13 years, with normal ventricular function. Repeat assessments of left ventricular (LV) function, electrocardiogram, and adverse event reporting were performed 6 monthly. The primary outcome was change in ejection fraction between arms after 36 months. The study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee East Midlands-Derby., Results: Eighty-five boys were recruited (76% on steroid therapy) and randomized to combination heart drugs or matched placebo. Group change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF%) at 36 months from baseline was -2.2% ± 6.0% and -2.9% ± 6.1% in active and placebo arms (adjusted mean difference: -2.1, 95% CI -5.2 to 1.1). There was no difference between treatment arms over repeated assessments (analysis of variance) up to 36 months (trial arms p = 0.53); arm-over-time ( p = 0.44). Four participants on placebo but none on active therapy were withdrawn due to deteriorations in LV function. Secondary outcomes did not differ between arms either. Thirty-six serious adverse events occurred none due to cardiac events or trial medication., Conclusions: Combination therapy was well tolerated. Consistent with the previous prophylactic perindopril heart study, there was no evidence of group benefit after 36-month treatment., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that combination perindopril-bisoprolol therapy was well tolerated but did not change decline in LVEF significantly in boys with DMD., (© 2021 American Academy of Neurology.)

Ezutromid (SMT C1100) is a small-molecule utrophin modulator that was developed to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Previous clinical trials of this agent revealed lower exposure in DMD patients compared with healthy volunteers, which may reflect differences in diet. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics of ezutromid in patients with DMD who followed a balanced diet. This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending single and multiple oral dose study. Twelve pediatric patients were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 treatment sequences within which were 3 treatment periods of 2 weeks each. Each patient received, in a dose-escalating fashion, 1250 mg and 2500 mg twice daily (BID) of ezutromid administered orally as a microfluidized suspension (F3) with placebo in the other treatment period. Throughout the study, patients followed a balanced diet including recommended proportions of major food groups and administration of drug accompanied with 100 mL of full-fat milk. This approach improved the absorption of ezutromid, resulting in higher systemic exposure, with considerable variability in exposure between patients at each dose level. Single and multiple oral doses of 1250 mg and 2500 mg BID were considered safe and well tolerated. No severe or serious adverse events and no study discontinuations due to adverse events were reported. This study provides assurance that, with the formulation tested (F3) and instructions regarding food (balanced diet and whole-fat milk), 2500 mg BID of ezutromid achieves plasma concentrations that, based on preclinical studies, should be able to modulate utrophin expression in future clinical trials., (© 2019, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Aim: Our aim was to ascertain the indications, side effects, and outcomes in children receiving therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) for neurological disorders., Method: Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for 58 consecutive children (age ≤16y) undergoing 67 courses of TPE across four tertiary centres. Patient characteristics, treatment schedules, complications, and outcomes were analysed., Results: Median age at initiation of TPE was 9 years (range 1-15y). Indications included peripheral nervous system (PNS; n=18) and central nervous system (CNS; n=40) disorders. Courses comprised a median six exchanges (range 2-179) over 8 days (range 3-466). Forty-two out of 58 (73%) children were severely disabled (bedridden) at initiation and 24 out of 58 (41%) were admitted to intensive care units. Treating clinicians' impression of response was positive in 16 out of 18 of those with PNS disorders versus 22 out of 40 with CNS disorders (p=0.016). Improvements in disability (modified Rankin Scale) occurred in 13 out of 58 (22%) children by completion of TPE (p=0.003). Complications occurred in 40 out of 67 (60%) courses, of which 16 out of 67 (24%) were line related. Potentially life-threatening complications occurred in 2 out of 67 (3%) courses., Interpretation: This cohort study provides safety and efficacy information for clinicians and families and a basis for future prospective studies., What This Paper Adds: Disability scores for severe neuroimmune disorders remained stable or improved during therapeutic plasma exchange treatment. Complications occurred frequently but were typically mild and correctable., (© 2019 Mac Keith Press.)

Background: Trials in rare diseases have many challenges, among which are the need to set up multiple sites in different countries to achieve recruitment targets and the divergent landscape of clinical trial regulations in those countries. Over the past years, there have been initiatives to facilitate the process of international study set-up, but the fruits of these deliberations require time to be operationally in place. FOR-DMD (Finding the Optimum Steroid Regimen for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy) is an academic-led clinical trial which aims to find the optimum steroid regimen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for 5 years (July 2010 to June 2015), anticipating that all sites (40 across the USA, Canada, the UK, Germany and Italy) would be open to recruitment from July 2011. However, study start-up was significantly delayed and recruitment did not start until January 2013., Method: The FOR-DMD study is used as an example to identify systematic problems in the set-up of international, multi-centre clinical trials. The full timeline of the FOR-DMD study, from funding approval to site activation, was collated and reviewed. Systematic issues were identified and grouped into (1) study set-up, e.g. drug procurement; (2) country set-up, e.g. competent authority applications; and (3) site set-up, e.g. contracts, to identify the main causes of delay and suggest areas where anticipatory action could overcome these obstacles in future studies., Results: Time from the first contact to site activation across countries ranged from 6 to 24 months. Reasons of delay were universal (sponsor agreement, drug procurement, budgetary constraints), country specific (complexity and diversity of regulatory processes, indemnity requirements) and site specific (contracting and approvals). The main identified obstacles included (1) issues related to drug supply, (2) NIH requirements regarding contracting with non-US sites, (3) differing regulatory requirements in the five participating countries, (4) lack of national harmonisation with contracting and the requirement to negotiate terms and contract individually with each site and (5) diversity of languages needed for study materials. Additionally, as with many academic-led studies, the FOR-DMD study did not have access to the infrastructure and expertise that a contracted research organisation could provide, organisations often employed in pharmaceutical-sponsored studies. This delay impacted recruitment, challenged the clinical relevance of the study outcomes and potentially delayed the delivery of the best treatment to patients., Conclusion: Based on the FOR-DMD experience, and as an interim solution, we have devised a checklist of steps to not only anticipate and minimise delays in academic international trial initiation but also identify obstacles that will require a concerted effort on the part of many stakeholders to mitigate.

Objectives: This study aimed to develop consensus on an internationally agreed dataset for juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM), designed for clinical use, to enhance collaborative research and allow integration of data between centres., Methods: A prototype dataset was developed through a formal process that included analysing items within existing databases of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. This template was used to aid a structured multistage consensus process. Exploiting Delphi methodology, two web-based questionnaires were distributed to healthcare professionals caring for patients with JDM identified through email distribution lists of international paediatric rheumatology and myositis research groups. A separate questionnaire was sent to parents of children with JDM and patients with JDM, identified through established research networks and patient support groups. The results of these parallel processes informed a face-to-face nominal group consensus meeting of international myositis experts, tasked with defining the content of the dataset. This developed dataset was tested in routine clinical practice before review and finalisation., Results: A dataset containing 123 items was formulated with an accompanying glossary. Demographic and diagnostic data are contained within form A collected at baseline visit only, disease activity measures are included within form B collected at every visit and disease damage items within form C collected at baseline and annual visits thereafter., Conclusions: Through a robust international process, a consensus dataset for JDM has been formulated that can capture disease activity and damage over time. This dataset can be incorporated into national and international collaborative efforts, including existing clinical research databases., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IEL has research grants from Astra Zeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb and has served on advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)