Phase 3 Study to Evaluate Efficacy of Amifampridine Phosphate in Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02970162|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : November 21, 2016
Results First Posted : December 24, 2018
Last Update Posted : December 24, 2018
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome||Drug: Amifampridine Phosphate Drug: Placebo Oral Tablet||Phase 3|
Expanded Access : An investigational treatment associated with this study is no longer available outside the clinical trial. More info ...
This was a randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, withdrawal study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of amifampridine phosphate in patients diagnosed with LEMS. The study was planned to include approximately 28 male and female patients.
Prior to the study, patients were receiving unblinded treatment in the expanded access program (EAP-001). Patients had to be on a stable dose and frequency of amifampridine phosphate for at least 1 week prior to randomization into LMS-003. Screening and randomization (Day 0) may have been into a single visit.
Patients who met eligibility criteria were randomized 1:1 to amifampridine phosphate (at the patient's optimal dose) or placebo on Day 0.
Baseline assessments were obtained on Study Day 0, while the patient has been on open-label amifampridine phosphate and in relationship to the usual dosing schedule. Patients took blinded study medication on Day 1 through Day 3. On Day 4, a dose of blinded study medication was administered by the site study personnel. This was the same medication that the patient took on Day 1 through Day 3. The assessments listed below were performed following either the second, third, or fourth dose of medication taken on Day 4, and this should be the same dose after which Day 0 assessments were performed. For example, if the patient took their second dose of amifampridine in the clinic on Day 0 and had assessments started 40 minutes later, then on Day 4, that patient should be assessed after taking their second dose of investigational product (IP).
Beginning with the next dose after all Day 0 baseline assessments were completed, the patient received IP through Day 4, with a clinic visit on the last day (Day 4) for assessments.
The planned duration of participation for each patient was up to 12 days, including screening (up to 7 days), Day 0 assessments and randomization, and IP administration (Day 1 through Day 4).
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||26 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)|
|Official Title:||A Phase 3, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Amifampridine Phosphate in Patients With Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome|
|Study Start Date :||November 2016|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||October 2017|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||October 2017|
Experimental: amifampridine phosphate
amifampridine phosphate 10 mg (amifampridine equivalent) by mouth, 30 to 80 mg total daily dose, 3 to 4 times per day for 4 days
Drug: Amifampridine Phosphate
Placebo Comparator: placebo (for amifampridine phosphate)
placebo by mouth 3 to 4 times per day for 4 days
Drug: Placebo Oral Tablet
- Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) Score [ Time Frame: change from baseline in QMG score at end of day 4 ]The QMG is a physician-rated test including 13 assessments such as facial strength, swallowing, grip strength, and duration of time that limbs can be maintained in outstretched positions. Each assessment is graded as 0 (none), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), or 3 (severe), for a total range of 0-39. A higher total score indicates a worse outcome.
- Subject Global Impression (SGI) Score [ Time Frame: change from baseline in SGI score at end of day 4 ]The SGI is a 7-point scale on which the patient rates their global impression of the effects of a study treatment (1=terrible to 7=delighted). The SGI was assessed by the patient or the patient's parent/guardian/caregiver if the patient was unable to complete the SGI. The SGI has demonstrated concordance with the physician's assessment of improvement.
- Change in Clinician's Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) at Day 4 Compared to Baseline [ Time Frame: change from baseline in CGI-I score at end of day 4 ]The CGI-I captures the Investigator's global impression of the patient's improvement or worsening from baseline status. The 7-point scale is scored by the Investigator based on changes in symptoms, behavior, and functional abilities. Each symptom is rated as 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved), 3 (minimally improved), 4 (no change), 5 (minimally worse), 6 (much worse), or 7 (very much worse). The total score can range from 0 to 49. A higher score indicates a worse outcome.
- Triple Timed Up and Go Walk Test (3TUG) [ Time Frame: change from baseline in 3TUG at end of day 4 ]The 3TUG is a functional mobility test that requires a patient to stand up from a straight-backed armchair, walk 3 meters, turn around, walk back, and sit down in the chair. A modification of this is where the individual performs the test 3 times without pause, and the measurement is the average time required to complete each of the 3 repetitions. Based upon literature reports that a significant change in gait for a similar walk-test is an increase in time of more than 20%, this has been incorporated into the endpoint.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02970162
|United States, California|
|Los Angeles, California, United States, 90095|
|Principal Investigator:||Perry Shieh, MD, PhD||University of California, Los Angeles|