Clinical Trial Results:
A Phase 3 Double-blind Randomized Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous ATB200 Co-administered With Oral AT2221 in Adult Subjects With Late-onset Pompe Disease Compared With Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo
Summary
|
|
EudraCT number |
2018-000755-40 |
Trial protocol |
DE DK GB SE HU BE SK ES NL BG SI GR AT IT |
Global end of trial date |
15 Dec 2020
|
Results information
|
|
Results version number |
v1(current) |
This version publication date |
16 Dec 2021
|
First version publication date |
16 Dec 2021
|
Other versions |
Trial Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
|
|||
Trial identification
|
|||
Sponsor protocol code |
ATB200-03
|
||
Additional study identifiers
|
|||
ISRCTN number |
- | ||
US NCT number |
NCT03729362 | ||
WHO universal trial number (UTN) |
- | ||
Sponsors
|
|||
Sponsor organisation name |
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
|
||
Sponsor organisation address |
3675 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA , United States, 19104
|
||
Public contact |
Patient advocacy, Amicus Therapeutics, Inc., 001 6096622000, clinicaltrials@amicusrx.com
|
||
Scientific contact |
Patient advocacy, Amicus Therapeutics, Inc., 001 6096622000, clinicaltrials@amicusrx.com
|
||
Paediatric regulatory details
|
|||
Is trial part of an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP) |
No
|
||
Does article 45 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial? |
No
|
||
Does article 46 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial? |
No
|
||
Results analysis stage
|
|||
Analysis stage |
Final
|
||
Date of interim/final analysis |
10 May 2021
|
||
Is this the analysis of the primary completion data? |
Yes
|
||
Primary completion date |
15 Dec 2020
|
||
Global end of trial reached? |
Yes
|
||
Global end of trial date |
15 Dec 2020
|
||
Was the trial ended prematurely? |
No
|
||
General information about the trial
|
|||
Main objective of the trial |
The objective is to assess the efficacy of ATB200 (also known as cipaglucosidase alfa)/AT2221 (also known as miglustat) co-administration on ambulatory function, as measured by the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), compared with alglucosidase alfa/placebo co-administration.
Following completion of Study ATB200-03, participants had the option to enroll in a long-term extension study (Study ATB200-07, EudraCT Number: 2019-000954-67) and receive cipaglucosidase alfa/ miglustat treatment until regulatory approval, marketing authorization, commercialization, or study termination.
|
||
Protection of trial subjects |
This study was conducted in accordance with International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice, and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, in addition to following the laws and regulations of the countries in which the study was conducted.
|
||
Background therapy |
- | ||
Evidence for comparator |
- | ||
Actual start date of recruitment |
30 Nov 2018
|
||
Long term follow-up planned |
Yes
|
||
Long term follow-up rationale |
Safety | ||
Long term follow-up duration |
4 Years | ||
Independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) involvement? |
No
|
||
Population of trial subjects
|
|||
Number of subjects enrolled per country |
|||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Netherlands: 1
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Poland: 2
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Slovakia: 1
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Sweden: 1
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
United Kingdom: 9
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Austria: 1
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Belgium: 3
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Denmark: 6
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
France: 11
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Germany: 5
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Greece: 1
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Hungary: 7
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Italy: 2
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Spain: 3
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 2
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Argentina: 1
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Canada: 3
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
United States: 37
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Australia: 18
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Japan: 6
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Taiwan: 2
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Korea, Republic of: 1
|
||
Worldwide total number of subjects |
123
|
||
EEA total number of subjects |
44
|
||
Number of subjects enrolled per age group |
|||
In utero |
0
|
||
Preterm newborn - gestational age < 37 wk |
0
|
||
Newborns (0-27 days) |
0
|
||
Infants and toddlers (28 days-23 months) |
0
|
||
Children (2-11 years) |
0
|
||
Adolescents (12-17 years) |
0
|
||
Adults (18-64 years) |
109
|
||
From 65 to 84 years |
14
|
||
85 years and over |
0
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recruitment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recruitment details |
- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pre-assignment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Screening details |
A total of 123 participants were enrolled in the study and dosed at 62 clinical sites across 24 countries. Two participants were randomly assigned to the alglucosidase alfa/placebo group but never dosed because genotyping did not confirm diagnosis of Pompe disease. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period 1 title |
Overall (overall period)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is this the baseline period? |
Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allocation method |
Randomised - controlled
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blinding used |
Double blind | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Roles blinded |
Subject, Investigator, Data analyst | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arms
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are arms mutually exclusive |
Yes
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
Cipaglucosidase alfa co-administered with miglustat every 2 weeks. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Experimental | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
ATB200
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Infusion
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Intravenous use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
20 milligram (mg)/kilogram (kg) intravenous (IV) infusion over a 4-hour duration every 2 weeks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Miglustat
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
AT2221
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Capsule
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Oral use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
Weight-based doses of 195 or 260 mg 1 hour prior to cipaglucosidase alfa infusion every 2 weeks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
Alglucosidase alfa co-administered with placebo every 2 weeks. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Active comparator | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Alglucosidase Alfa
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Infusion
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Intravenous use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
20 mg/kg IV infusion over a 4-hour duration every 2 weeks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Capsule
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Oral use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
Miglustat matching placebo was administered 1 hour prior to alglucosidase alfa infusion every 2 weeks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Baseline characteristics reporting groups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
Cipaglucosidase alfa co-administered with miglustat every 2 weeks. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
Alglucosidase alfa co-administered with placebo every 2 weeks. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
End points reporting groups
|
|||
Reporting group title |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat
|
||
Reporting group description |
Cipaglucosidase alfa co-administered with miglustat every 2 weeks. | ||
Reporting group title |
Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo
|
||
Reporting group description |
Alglucosidase alfa co-administered with placebo every 2 weeks. | ||
Subject analysis set title |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Safety analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
All participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug (cipaglucosidase alfa/miglustat).
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Safety analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
All participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug (alglucosidase alfa/placebo).
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-OBS)
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Intention-to-treat | ||
Subject analysis set description |
The Intent-to-Treat (ITT)-observed (OBS) population consisted of all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Analyses used all available, observed data without imputation for missing post-baseline data. That is, missing data at Week 52 and at other visits were not replaced.
An outlier participant was identified in the alglucosidase alfa/placebo group. Analysis excluding this participant was considered the primary analysis. All efficacy results in the ITT Population are presented excluding the 1 outlier participant.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-OBS)
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Intention-to-treat | ||
Subject analysis set description |
The ITT-OBS population consisted of all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Analyses used all available, observed data without imputation for missing post-baseline data. That is, missing data at Week 52 and at other visits were not replaced. An outlier participant was identified in the alglucosidase alfa/placebo group. Analysis excluding this participant was considered the primary analysis. All efficacy results in the ITT Population are presented excluding the 1 outlier participant.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-LOCF)
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Intention-to-treat | ||
Subject analysis set description |
The ITT–Last Observation Carried Forward (ITT-LOCF) population consisted of all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Analyses used the LOCF method to replace missing data. An outlier participant was identified in the alglucosidase alfa/placebo group. Analysis excluding this participant was considered the primary analysis. All efficacy results in the ITT Population are presented excluding the 1 outlier participant.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-LOCF)
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Intention-to-treat | ||
Subject analysis set description |
The ITT–Last Observation Carried Forward (ITT-LOCF) population consisted of all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Analyses used the LOCF method to replace missing data. An outlier participant was identified in the alglucosidase alfa/placebo group. Analysis excluding this participant was considered the primary analysis. All efficacy results in the ITT Population are presented excluding the 1 outlier participant.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
Pharmacokinetic (PK) Population: Participants who were exposed to at least 1 dose of cipaglucosidase alfa and had at least 1 PK assessment.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Alglucosidase Alfa
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
PK Population: Participants who were exposed to at least 1 dose of alglucosidase alfa and had at least 1 PK assessment.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Miglustat
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
PK Population: Participants who were exposed to at least 1 dose of miglustat and had at least 1 PK assessment.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
Immunogenicity Population: All participants who received at least 1 dose of cipaglucosidase alfa.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
Alglucosidase Alfa
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
Immunogenicity Population: All participants who received at least 1 dose of alglucosidase alfa.
|
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In 6 Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The efficacy of cipaglucosidase alfa/miglustat co-administration on ambulatory function was measured by the 6MWT. The 6MWD, measured in meters, is the distance walked on the 6MWT. A greater distance indicated greater endurance. An increase from baseline indicated improvement.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Change From Baseline (CFBL) To Week 52 In 6MWD | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested in a hierarchical order as follows:
The test for the primary endpoint was conducted first at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level, and if significant, the ordered key secondary endpoints were similarly tested. If at any point the null hypothesis for superiority failed to be rejected, then that comparison and any other comparison below it could not be claimed as successful and would be considered nominal.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-OBS) v Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-OBS)
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
117
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [1] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.048 [2] | ||||||||||||
Method |
MMRM | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
LS Mean Difference | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
14.21
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-2.6 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
31.02 | ||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard error of the mean
|
||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
8.481
|
||||||||||||
Notes [1] - Analysis used mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included terms for treatment, baseline 6MWD, age, height, weight (all as continuous covariates), enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), gender, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. Time was used as a repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance approach was applied. [2] - 1-sided significance level of 0.025. |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Sitting Forced Vital Capacity (FVC; % predicted) | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The efficacy of cipaglucosidase alfa/miglustat co-administration on pulmonary function was measured by sitting FVC (% predicted). FVC is a standard pulmonary function test used to quantify respiratory muscle weakness.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
CFBL To Week 52 In Sitting FVC (% predicted) | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Change from baseline to Week 52 in sitting FVC was the first of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-LOCF) v Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-LOCF)
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
121
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [3] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.012 [4] | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
LS Mean Difference | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
2.66
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
0.37 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
4.95 | ||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard error of the mean
|
||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
1.156
|
||||||||||||
Notes [3] - The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight. [4] - 1-sided significance level of 0.025. |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In The Manual Muscle Test (MMT) Score For The Lower Extremities | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The total score for the MMT lower extremity strength included the following 8 body parts: right/left hip flexion, right/left hip abduction, right/left knee flexion, and right/left knee extension. The MMT lower extremity score ranged from 0 to 40, with lower scores indicating weaker muscle strength. An increase from baseline indicated increased muscle strength.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
CFBL To Week 52 In MMT Lower Extremity | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Change from baseline to Week 52 in the MMT score for the lower extremities was the second of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-LOCF) v Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-LOCF)
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
114
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [5] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.095 [6] | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
LS Means Difference | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.96
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.48 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
2.4 | ||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard error of the mean
|
||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.727
|
||||||||||||
Notes [5] - The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight. [6] - 1-sided significance level of 0.025. |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 26 In 6MWD | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The 6MWD, measured in meters, is the distance walked on the 6MWT.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 26
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
CFBL To Week 26 In 6MWD | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Change from baseline to Week 26 in 6MWD was the third of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-LOCF) v Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-LOCF)
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
122
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [7] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.097 [8] | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
LS Means Difference | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
8.17
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-4.24 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
20.57 | ||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard error of the mean
|
||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
6.261
|
||||||||||||
Notes [7] - The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight. [8] - 1-sided significance level of 0.025. |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In The Total Score For The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) – Physical Function | ||||||||||||
End point description |
Physical Function Short Form 20a (v2.0) consisted of 20 questions. The first 14 questions were each scored on a scale from 1 to 5 as follows: 1 = unable to do; 2 = with much difficulty; 3 = with some difficulty; 4 = with a little difficulty; 5 = without any difficulty; the next 6 questions were each scored on a scale from 1 to 5 as follows: 1 = cannot do; 2 = quite a lot; 3 = somewhat; 4 = very little; 5 = not at all. The total score was calculated by summing up scores (1 to 5) across all items. A higher score represented better outcome.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
CFBL To Week 52 In PROMIS® – Physical Function | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® – Physical Function was the fourth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-LOCF) v Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-LOCF)
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
121
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [9] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.138 [10] | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
LS Means Difference | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
1.87
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-1.51 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
5.25 | ||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard error of the mean
|
||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
1.706
|
||||||||||||
Notes [9] - The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight. [10] - 1-sided significance level of 0.025 |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In The Total Score For The PROMIS® – Fatigue | ||||||||||||
End point description |
Fatigue Short Form 8a consisted of 6 questions, each scored on a scale from 1 to 5 as follows: 1 = not at all; 2 = a little bit; 3 = somewhat; 4 = quite a bit; 5 = very much; and 2 questions, each scored on a scale from 1 to 5 as follows: 1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = always. The total score was calculated by summing up scores (1 to 5) across all items. A lower score represented lower fatigue symptoms.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
CFBL To Week 52 In PROMIS® – Fatigue | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® – Fatigue was the fifth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-LOCF) v Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-LOCF)
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
122
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [11] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.515 [12] | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
LS Means Difference | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.04
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-2.12 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
2.2 | ||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard error of the mean
|
||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
1.092
|
||||||||||||
Notes [11] - The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight. [12] - 1-sided significance level of 0.025. |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In The Total Score For The Gait, Stairs, Gowers’ Maneuver, And Chair (GSGC) | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The GSGC consisted of a 10-meter walk for evaluation of gait, a 4-stair climb, Gowers' maneuver, and arising from a chair. Results of the GSGC included the time required to complete the individual tests, individual scores for each of the tests (1 to 7 points for each of gait, 4-stair climb, and Gowers' maneuver and 1 to 6 points for arising from a chair), and a total score. GSGC total score was the sum of the component scores from the 4 functional tests. The total score ranged from a minimum of 4 points (normal performance) to a maximum of 27 points (worst performance).
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
CFBL To Week 52 In GSGC Total Score | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the GSGC was the sixth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat (ITT-LOCF) v Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo (ITT-LOCF)
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
102
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [13] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.004 [14] | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
LS Means Difference | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-1.414
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-2.463 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
-0.364 | ||||||||||||
Variability estimate |
Standard error of the mean
|
||||||||||||
Dispersion value |
0.528
|
||||||||||||
Notes [13] - The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight. [14] - 1-sided significance level of 0.025. |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In % Predicted 6MWD | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The % predicted 6MWD = (actual 6MWD / predicted 6MWD) * 100.
The predicted values were calculated using Enright And Sherrill 1998 Reference Equations.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||
End point title |
Number Of Participants Improving On Both 6MWD And % Predicted FVC | |||||||||
End point description |
A composite subject-level response of the 2 relevant clinical outcomes, 6MWD and FVC (% predicted), was assessed. Prespecified thresholds were used for assessment of improvement consistent with published minimal clinically important difference values for comparable instruments in similar disease.
|
|||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline In the Time to Complete Individual GSGC Component Tests And Timed Up And Go (TUG) Test At Week 52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Motor function test assessed the time to complete individual GSGC component tests (10-meter walk, 4-stair climb, Gowers' maneuver, and arise from a chair) and the TUG test. The TUG test assessed the time a subject needed to rise from a chair, walk 3 meters, turn around, walk back to the chair, and sit down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In The Quantitative Muscle Test (QMT) Values (Kg) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
QMT was measured using the hand-held dynamometer. Larger values (in kg) indicated greater muscle strength.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Other MMT Scores | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Each manual muscle test was evaluated on a scoring scale from 0 to 5, as follows: 0 = no muscle movement; 1 = visible muscle movement, but no movement at the joint; 2 = movement at the joint, but not against gravity; 3 = movement against gravity, but not against added resistance; 4 = movement against resistance, but less than normal; 5 = normal strength. Upper extremity score was the sum of scores for right/left shoulder abduction, right/left shoulder adduction, right/left elbow extension, and right/left elbow flexion, with the total score ranging from 0 to 40.
Proximal muscle group score was the sum of scores for right/left hip flexion, right/left hip abduction, right/left shoulder abduction, and right/left shoulder adduction, with the total score ranging from 0 to 40. MMT total score was the sum of the lower and upper extremity scores, and ranged from 0 to 80. Lower scores indicated lower overall muscle strength. An increase from baseline indicated improvement in muscle strength.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Sitting Slow Vital Capacity (SVC) % Predicted | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
SVC is a standard pulmonary function test used to quantify respiratory muscle weakness.
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Maximum Vital Capacity (Maximum VC) % Predicted | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
Maximum VC is the greater of the two VC values (FVC or SVC).
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Maximal Inspiratory Pressure (MIP) % Predicted | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
The percent predicted values of MIP were calculated as: % predicted = (actual result / predicted result) * 100, where the predicted results were obtained using the reference equations from Uldry and Fitting (1995).
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Maximal Expiratory Pressure (MEP) % Predicted | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
The percent predicted values of MEP were calculated as: % predicted = (actual result / predicted result) * 100, where the predicted results were obtained using the reference equations from Uldry and Fitting (1995).
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Sniff Nasal Inspiratory Pressure (SNIP) % Predicted | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
The percent predicted values of SNIP were calculated as: % predicted = (actual result / predicted result) * 100, where the predicted results were obtained using the reference equations from Evans and Whitelaw (2009).
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In PROMIS-Dyspnea And Upper Extremities Total Scores | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
The Upper Extremities Short Form 7a consisted of 7 items each scored on a decreasing scale from 1 to 5 as follows: 1 = unable to do; 2 = with much difficulty; 3 = with some difficulty; 4 = with a little difficulty; 5 = without any difficulty.
Dyspnea Severity Short Form 10a consisted of 10 items each scored on a scale from 0 to 3 as follows: 0
= no shortness of breath; 1 = mildly short of breath; 2 = moderately short of breath; 3 = severely short of breath.
A total score was generated for each instrument by adding up each item. A higher score for upper extremities represented improvement in symptoms. A lower score for dyspnea severity represented improvement in symptoms.
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change from Baseline To Week 52 In Rasch-Built Pompe-Specific Activity (R-PAct) Total Score | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The R-PAct scale was an 18-item questionnaire to measure limitations in activities and restriction in social participation. Possible responses to questions were as follows: unable to perform, able to perform, but with difficulty, and able to perform without difficulty. The total score was calculated by summing up the observed scores across the 18 items and it ranged from 0 to 36, with higher values representing lower level of disease impact on the muscles.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In European Quality Of Life-5 Dimensions 5 Response Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Based On The EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS) Quantitative Score | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The EQ-5D-5L consisted of the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ VAS. Each of the 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities,
pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) had 5 categorical responses/levels of perceived problems coded as follows:
Level 1 = indicating no problem; Level 2 = indicating slight problems;
Level 3 = indicating moderate problems; Level 4 = indicating severe problems;
Level 5 = indicating extreme problems (for pain and anxiety) or indicating unable to (for mobility, self- care, and activity). The EQ VAS was a quantitative measure of health outcome that reflected the participants' own judgement. A lower score represented lower levels of perceived problems.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Physician’s Global Impression Of Change (PGIC) Overall Status | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Physician’s Global Impression of Change is based on a single item that is scored on a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 "very much worse" to 7 "very much improved".
A tertiary response variable (improving, declining, stable) was defined as follows: “Improving”, which consisted of improved, moderately improved, and very much improved; “Declining”, which consisted of worse, moderately worse, and very much worse; and “Stable”, which equaled to no change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Subject’s Global Impression Of Change (SGIC) | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
The SGIC is designed to record the participants' impression of their functional status since starting study drug using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 "very much worse" to 7 "very much improved".
A tertiary response variable (improving, declining, stable) was defined as follows: “Improving”, which consisted of improved, moderately improved, and very much improved; “Declining”, which consisted of worse, moderately worse, and very much worse; and “Stable”, which equaled to no change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Serum Creatine Kinase (CK) Level | ||||||||||||
End point description |
CK levels were measured as part of the serum chemistry panel.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change From Baseline To Week 52 In Urinary Hexose Tetrasaccharide (Hex4) Level | ||||||||||||
End point description |
Levels of urinary Hex4, a biomarker of disease substrate, were measured. The assay specifically targeted Hex4, the glucose tetrasaccharide Glc4, which was a biomarker of glycogen storage.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline, Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Population Pharmacokinetics (PK): Maximum Observed Concentration (Cmax) Of Cipaglucosidase Alfa And Alglucosidase Alfa In ERT-Experienced Participants Using Plasma Total GAA Protein Level By Signature Peptide Assay And Plasma Miglustat Concentration | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
On Days 1 and 364 (Week 52), sparse blood samples were collected for PK analysis in ERT-experienced participants at 0, 1, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose. Collection of the 12-hour sample was optional.
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Days 1 and 364 (Week 52)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Notes [15] - Day 1: n=56 Day 364: n=44 [16] - Day 1: n=26 Day 364: n=21 |
|||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Population PK: Area Under The Concentration-Time Curve (AUC) Of Cipaglucosidase Alfa And Alglucosidase Alfa In ERT-Experienced Participants Using Plasma Total GAA Protein Level By Signature Peptide Assay And Plasma Miglustat Concentration | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
On Days 1 and 364 (Week 52), sparse blood samples were collected for PK analysis in ERT-experienced participants at 0, 1, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose. Collection of the 12-hour sample was optional.
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Days 1 and 364 (Week 52)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Notes [17] - Day 1: n=56 Day 364: n=26 [18] - Day 1: n=26 Day 364: n=21 |
|||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Population PK: Cmax Of Cipaglucosidase Alfa And Alglucosidase Alfa In ERT-Naïve Subjects | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
On Days 1 and 364 (Week 52), sparse blood samples were collected for PK analysis in ERT-naïve participants at 0, 1, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose. Collection of the 12-hour sample was optional.
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Days 1 and 364 (Week 52)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Notes [19] - Day 1: n=18 Day 364: n=16 [20] - Day 1: n=7 Day 364 n=7 |
|||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Population PK: AUC Of Cipaglucosidase Alfa And Alglucosidase Alfa In ERT-Naïve Subjects | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
On Days 1 and 364 (Week 52), sparse blood samples were collected for PK analysis in ERT-naïve participants at 0, 1, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose. Collection of the 12-hour sample was optional.
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Days 1 and 364 (Week 52)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Notes [21] - Day 1: n=18 Day 364: n=16 [22] - Day 1: n=7 Day 364: n=7 |
|||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Noncompartmental Analysis: Cmax Of Plasma Total GAA Protein By Signature Peptide T09 in ERT-Naïve Subjects | ||||||||||||||||
End point description |
A noncompartmental analysis was performed on ERT-naïve subjects, who underwent serial PK sampling during the study. On Day 1, serial blood samples were collected for ERT-naïve participants just prior to initiation of cipaglucosidase alfa/alglucosidase alfa infusion (time 0) and at 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 6, 8, 10, and 24 hours after the start of cipaglucosidase alfa/alglucosidase alfa infusion for plasma total human acid α-glucosidase (GAA) protein signature peptide T09 and plasma miglustat determinations.
|
||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Day 1
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Noncompartmental Analysis: AUC From Time 0 (Predose) To The Time Of Last Quantifiable Concentration Of Plasma Total GAA Protein By Signature Peptide T09 In ERT-Naïve Subjects | ||||||||||||||||
End point description |
A noncompartmental analysis was performed on ERT-naïve subjects, who underwent serial PK sampling during the study. On Day 1, serial blood samples were collected for ERT-naïve participants just prior to initiation of cipaglucosidase alfa/alglucosidase alfa infusion (time 0) and at 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 6, 8, 10, and 24 hours after the start of cipaglucosidase alfa/alglucosidase alfa infusion for plasma total GAA protein signature peptide T09 and plasma miglustat determinations.
|
||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Day 1
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||
End point title |
Comparison Of Cmax Of Cipaglucosidase Alfa In ERT-Experienced And ERT-Naïve Populations | ||||||||
End point description |
On Days 1 and 364 (Week 52), sparse blood samples were collected for PK analysis at 0, 1, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose. Collection of the 12-hour sample was optional. Data were combined for Days 1 and 364 (Week 52) and analyzed using ANOVA. Ratio of geometric LS mean (%) of the test (ERT-naïve) to the reference (ERT-experienced) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to assess bioequivalence. Bioequivalence criteria was met if the upper- and lower-bound 90% CIs were within 80% and 125%.
|
||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||
End point timeframe |
Days 1 and 364 (Week 52)
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||
End point title |
Comparison Of AUC Of Cipaglucosidase Alfa In ERT- Experienced And ERT-Naïve Populations | ||||||||
End point description |
On Days 1 and 364 (Week 52), sparse blood samples were collected for PK analysis at 0, 1, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose. Collection of the 12-hour sample was optional. Data were combined for Days 1 and 364 (Week 52) and analyzed using ANOVA. Ratio of geometric LS mean (%) of the test (ERT-naïve) to the reference (ERT-experienced) and 90% CI were calculated to assess bioequivalence. Bioequivalence criteria was met if the upper- and lower-bound 90% CIs were within 80% and 125%.
|
||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||
End point timeframe |
Days 1 and 364 (Week 52)
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Anti-Drug Antibodies (ADAs) | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Treatment-emergent ADAs were defined as participants who had seroconverted or boosted their preexisting ADA during the study period.
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Baseline up to Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Notes [23] - ERT-experienced: n=65 ERT-naïve: n=20 [24] - ERT-experienced: n=30 ERT-naïve: n=8 |
|||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adverse events information
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timeframe for reporting adverse events |
Day 1 (after dosing) through Week 52 and follow-up (30 days after last dose).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adverse event reporting additional description |
All participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assessment type |
Systematic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary used for adverse event reporting
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary name |
MedDRA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary version |
23.0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting groups
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Cipaglucosidase Alfa/Miglustat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
- | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
- | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequency threshold for reporting non-serious adverse events: 5% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
Substantial protocol amendments (globally) |
|||
Were there any global substantial amendments to the protocol? Yes | |||
Date |
Amendment |
||
21 Sep 2018 |
• added sites and ERT-naïve participants to increase sample size and support an indication in all patients with LOPD
• clarified the strength and number of capsules of miglustat and amount of cipaglucosidase alfa per vial
• increased the duration of treatment
• added the number of placebo capsules and amount of alglucosidase alfa per vial
• updated interim statistical analyses to reflect changes in study design
• changed the primary analysis from an intrasubject comparison to a between-group comparison per advice of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
• identified key secondary objectives for hierarchical testing
• updated results from Study ATB200-02
• revised primary objective to reflect change in study design
• clarified definition of the final analysis
• removed upper limit of the age restriction
• broadened the FVC inclusion criterion
• modified the screening criterion for 6MWD to be broader and less restrictive
• updated other exclusion criteria, including the exclusion of previous gene therapy
• clarified contraception guidance with respect to participants in the UK
• clarified study drug storage criteria for global studies
• removed restriction for registered pharmacist
• allowed for an additional day to complete assessments
• clarified assessments at infusions visits
• separated ET visit from follow-up visit
• clarified assessments during the follow-up period
• specified collection of historical results for 6MWT, MMT, and FVC as available during the 5 years before the study
• added body temperature assessment
• replaced the FSS with EQ-5D-5L and added the PROMIS instrument for upper extremity
• added MEP assessment
• clarified that videotaping is optional
• provided details about analysis of key secondary endpoints
• updated study conduct considerations |
||
25 Jan 2019 |
• changed the order of endpoints at the request of the FDA
• added a PK substudy in ERT-naïve participants
• increased the minimum number of ERT-naïve participants at the request of the FDA
• reduced the minimum weight for inclusion
• introduced new miglustat dosing guidelines based on participant weight
• excluded participants with hypersensitivity to any of the excipients in cipaglucosidase alfa, alglucosidase alfa, or miglustat excluded participants without documentation of Pompe disease and who refused to undergo genetic testing
• removed early study stopping and sample size re-estimation provisions in response to comments from the FDA
• added the option for home infusions for participants meeting additional criteria
• extended the follow-up period for immunogenicity at the request of the FDA
• added criteria for the termination of the study at the request of the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM)
• added monitoring of participants during and after the first 3 infusions at the request of the Danish Medicines Agency (DMA)
• added sections on randomization, blinding, and unblinding at the request of the DMA and other European agencies
• adjusted the collection of immunogenicity samples at the request of the FDA
• adjusted scheduling of the Day -15 Screening Visit
• revised the contraceptive requirements to align with Clinical Trial Facilitating Group recommendations
• updated the severity ratings for AEs
• revised which analyses will use the ITT and mITT Populations in response to comments from the FDA
• updated the document to reflect additional data |
||
17 Aug 2020 |
• updated the schedule of Screening Visits
• added text due to COVID-19
• updated an exclusion criterion
• revised acceptable contraception wording
• revised study drug storage temperatures
• removed incorrect text regarding ATB200 excipients
• added footnote to the Schedule of Assessments to expand upon Week 52/ET visit details
• updated schedule of screening visits
• revised weeks for collection of blood samples for presence of rhGAA antibodies
• revised text for doses based on body weight
• defined fasting
• revised the collection schedule for blood samples to test for presence of rhGAA Abs
• updated the text on rescreening
• modified the home infusion criteria to add eligibility for participants whose mild IAR could be controlled with medication
• added windows for PK sample collection
• revised and updated information regarding blood samples for genotyping for participant randomization
• revised informed consent text |
||
Interruptions (globally) |
|||
Were there any global interruptions to the trial? No | |||
Limitations and caveats |
|||
Limitations of the trial such as small numbers of subjects analysed or technical problems leading to unreliable data. | |||
None |