Working...
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

A Phase 2 Study to Evaluate the Safety, Efficacy, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of PF-06252616 in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

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: NCT02310763
Recruitment Status : Terminated (Termination Date 30AUG2018: Reason for termination: Lack of Efficacy)
First Posted : December 8, 2014
Results First Posted : July 23, 2019
Last Update Posted : July 23, 2019
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Pfizer

Brief Summary:
This is a Phase 2 randomized, 2-period, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending dose study to evaluate the safety, efficacy, PK and PD of PF-06252616 administered to ambulatory boys diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Three intravenous (IV) dose levels will be investigated in a within subject dose escalating fashion. Subjects will be randomly assigned to 1 of 3 sequence groups for approximately 96 weeks (2 periods of 48 weeks each). In period 1, two of the sequence groups will receive PF-06252616 and one sequence group will receive placebo. In period 2, the placebo group will switch to PF-06252616 and the two remaining sequence groups will either receive placebo or PF-06252616. Efficacy will be based on an observed mean change from baseline on function (4 stair climb) of PF-06252616 as compared to the placebo at the end of period 1. Period 2 provides an opportunity to evaluate PK. Subjects will receive monthly IV infused doses of either PF-06252616 or placebo and will undergo safety evaluations (Laboratory, cardiac monitoring, physical exams, x-ray, MRI), functional evaluations (pulmonary function testing, 4 stair climb, range of motion, strength testing, Northstar Ambulatory Assessment, upper limb functional testing and the six minute walk test), pharmacokinetic testing and pharmacodynamic testing to evaluate changes in muscle volume (MRI).

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Biological: PF-06252616 Drug: Placebo Phase 2

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment : 121 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Masking: Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: A PHASE 2 RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, MULTIPLE ASCENDING DOSE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, EFFICACY, PHARMACOKINETICS AND PHARMACODYNAMICS OF PF-06252616 IN AMBULATORY BOYS WITH DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY
Actual Study Start Date : November 24, 2014
Actual Primary Completion Date : April 26, 2018
Actual Study Completion Date : November 23, 2018


Arm Intervention/treatment
Experimental: PF-06252616
3 dose levels (5mg/kg, 20mg/kg and 40 mg/kg) of IV infused PF-06252616 will be investigated within each subject
Biological: PF-06252616
PF-06252616 IV Infusion, 3 dose levels (5mg/kg, 20 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg) will be investigated within each subject

Placebo Comparator: Placebo
Matching Placebo
Drug: Placebo



Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Number of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Study Day 1 to Week 49 visit ]
    An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation participant administered a product; the event did not need to have a causal relationship with the treatment. A serious adverse event (SAE) was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that resulted in death; was life threatening; required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity; resulted in congenital anomaly/birth defect. AEs included both SAEs and AEs. TEAEs were AEs occurred following the start of treatment or AEs increasing in severity during treatment. Severe TEAEs were TEAEs that interfered significantly with participants' usual function. Treatment-related TEAEs were determined by the investigator.

  2. Number of Participants Who Discontinued From the Study Due to TEAEs by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Study Day 1 to Week 49 visit ]
    An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation participant administered a product; the event did not need to have a causal relationship with the treatment. TEAEs were AEs occurred following the start of treatment or AEs increasing in severity during treatment. Treatment-related TEAEs were determined by the investigator.

  3. Number of Participants With Dose Reduced or Temporary Discontinuation Due to TEAEs by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Study Day 1 to Week 49 visit ]
    An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation participant administered a product; the event did not need to have a causal relationship with the treatment. TEAEs were AEs occurred following the start of treatment or AEs increasing in severity during treatment. Treatment-related TEAEs were determined by the investigator.

  4. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Hematology [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Hematology evaluation included: hemoglobin, hematocrit, red blood cell (RBC) count, platelets, RBC morphology, white blood cell (WBC) count, absolute lymphocytes, absolute atypical lymphocytes, absolute total neutrophils, absolute total neutrophils count, absolute band cells, absolute basophils, absolute eosinophils, absolute monocytes and absolute myelocytes.

  5. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Coagulation [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Coagulation evaluation included activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and prothrombin time (PT).

  6. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Liver Function [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Liver function evaluation included: total/direct/indirect bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase, total protein, albumin and glutamate dehydrogenase.

  7. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Renal Function [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Renal function evaluation included: blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine and uric acid.

  8. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Electrolytes [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Electrolytes evaluation included: sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, phosphate, bicarbonate, ferritin, transferrin saturation, iron, iron binding capacity and unsaturated iron binding capacity. Number of participants with iron abnormalities was reported in different age groups.

  9. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Hormones [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Hormone evaluations included free thyroxine (T4), thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), lutenizing hormone (LH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), and androstenedione. Numbers of participants with abnormalities of LH, FSH and androstenedione were reported in different age groups.

  10. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Clinical Chemistry [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Clinical chemistry evaluation included glucose, creatine kinase (CK), troponin I, and amylase.

  11. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Urinalysis [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Urinalysis included: urine pH, qualitative urine glucose, qualitative urine ketones, qualitative urine protein, qualitative blood/hemoglobin, urine nitrite, urine leukocytes, urine RBC, urine WBC, urine granular casts, urine hyaline casts, urine urate (uric acid) acidic crystal, urine calcium oxalate crystals, urine amorphous crystals, urine bacteria, urine microscopic exam.

  12. Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) by Week 49 - Fecal [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Number of participants with blood detected in fecal samples is presented.

  13. Categorical Summary of Liver Iron Accumulation by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Screening, Weeks 13, 29 and 45 ]
    Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of Liver was obtained to quantify liver iron accumulation for safety monitoring. MRIs were sent to an independent central radiology imaging facility for calculation of the average transverse relaxation rate (R2*) value which was used to monitor for iron accumulation in the liver. Number of participants meeting the following criteria is presented as follows: 1) normal: R2*<=75Hz at 1.5T or <=139 Hz at 3.0T; 2) above normal: R2*>75Hz and <=190Hz at 1.5T or R2* >139Hz and <=369Hz at 3.0T; 3) mild overload: R2*>190Hz at 1.5T or R2*>360Hz at 3.0T.

  14. Number of Participants With Physical Examination Findings Reported as SAEs by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Physical examination included head, ears, eyes, nose, mouth, skin, heart and lung examinations, lymph nodes, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and neurological systems. A targeted nose and throat mucosal exam were also performed to monitor for any signs of mucosal telangiectasias. An SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that resulted in death; was life threatening; required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity; resulted in congenital anomaly/birth defect. Investigators determined which physical examination findings were reported as SAEs.

  15. Summary of Tanner Stage Rating by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Tanner staging was performed before the first dose of each dose escalation to monitor for signs of accelerated sexual development. The physical changes in pubertal development (pubic hair, penis and testes) were assessed using the system described by Marshall and Tanner. Stage 1 is preadolescent, Stages 2, 3, and 4 are initiation of puberty and Stage 5 is mature adult. Details about the system can be referred to Tanner JM. Growth at Adolescence. Blackwell Scientific Publications 1962; 2nd edition.

  16. Number of Participants With Vital Signs Findings Reported as SAEs by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Vital signs evaluation included supine systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), pulse rate, and respiratory rate. An SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that resulted in death; was life threatening; required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity; resulted in congenital anomaly/birth defect. Investigators determined which vital signs findings were reported as SAEs.

  17. Number of Participants With Electrocardiogram (ECG) Data Meeting Pre-specified Criteria by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    Number of participants with ECG data meeting the following criteria are presented: 1) corrected QT interval using Fridericia's formula (QTcF interval) <450msec; 2) QTcF interval >=450 and <480msec; 3) QTcF interval >=480 and <500msec; 4) QTcF interval>=500msec; 5) QTcF interval increase from baseline<30msec; 6) QTcF interval increase from baseline >=30 and <60msec; 7) QTcF interval increase from baseline >=60msec.

  18. Change From Baseline in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) as Compared to Placebo by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    The LVEF was the ratio of blood ejected during systole to blood in the ventricle at the end of diastole. LVEF was measured by cardiac magnetic resonance image (MRI) or echocardiogram. The same method of cardiac imaging was used consistently within a single participant. Cardiac MRIs were read by a central imaging vendor and echocardiograms were read locally at each site. The LVEF values measured by cardiac MRI and echocardiogram are combined in the following presentation. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo on LVEF. The baseline result, age, use of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/beta blocker/angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and treatment were included as fixed effects in the model.

  19. Height-adjusted Z-score of Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density Over Time by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Screening and Week 49 ]
    Bone mineral density (BMD) was evaluated by Dual energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA). The height adjusted Z-score presented below is the number of standard deviations which compares the BMD of the participant to the average BMD matched for their age, sex and ethnicity. If the Z-score was -2 standard deviations or lower, the result was "below the expected range for age". If the Z-score was above -2 standard deviations, the result was "within the expected range for age".

  20. Bone Age to Chronological Age Ratio by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Screening, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Bone age assessment was evaluated by the ratio of the bone age to the chronological age using the X rays of the hand and wrist. Ratio of bone age to chronological age was calculated by bone age/chronological age at scan date. Chronological age at scan date was calculated by (scan date-date of birth+1)/365.25.

  21. Number of Participants With Suicidal Ideation and Suicidal Behavior Reported as AEs by Week 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 49 visit ]
    An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation participant administered a product; the event did not need to have a causal relationship with the treatment. The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) was performed to identify the risk of suicide ideation or behavior. AEs of suicide ideation or behavior were determined by the investigator.

  22. Change From Baseline on the 4 Stair Climb (4SC) as Compared to Placebo at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    The 4SC quantified the time required for a participant to ascend 4 standard steps. Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change from baseline on 4SC for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.


Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    FVC was measured by spirometry to evaluate respiratory muscle function. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on FVC for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  2. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on the Northstar Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    The NSAA is a 17-item test that measured gross motor function. Each individual item received a score of 0-unable to perform independently, 1-able to perform with assistance, or 2-able to perform without assistance. A total score was achieved by summing all the individual items. The total score could range from 0 to 34 (fully-independent function). MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  3. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on the Ankle Range of Motion (ROM) at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    ROM was evaluated by using goniometry to evaluate the loss of motion in the ankles. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on ROM for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  4. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on the Performance of Upper Limb (PUL) Overall Score at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    The PUL was used to assess motor performance of the upper limb. The PUL scale includes 22 items; an entry item defining the starting functional level, and 21 items subdivided into three levels: shoulder (4 items), middle (9 items) and distal (8 items). Scoring options per item may not be uniform and may vary from 0-1 and 0-6, according to the performance, with higher values corresponding to better performance. A total maximum score of 74 is achieved by adding the individual level scores. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  5. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on the Six Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) Score at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    6MWD evaluated ambulation ability by measuring the distance walked in 6 minutes. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on 6MWD for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  6. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on Muscle Strength of Elbow Extension at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Muscle strength was quantified by means of a handheld dynamometer. The following muscle groups were evaluated: knee extension, elbow flexion, hip abduction, elbow extension and shoulder abduction. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on muscle strength for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  7. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on Muscle Strength of Elbow Flexion at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Muscle strength was quantified by means of a handheld dynamometer. The following muscle groups were evaluated: knee extension, elbow flexion, hip abduction, elbow extension and shoulder abduction. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on muscle strength for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  8. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on Muscle Strength of Hip Abduction at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Muscle strength was quantified by means of a handheld dynamometer. The following muscle groups were evaluated: knee extension, elbow flexion, hip abduction, elbow extension and shoulder abduction. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on muscle strength for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  9. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on Muscle Strength of Knee Extension at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Muscle strength was quantified by means of a handheld dynamometer. The following muscle groups were evaluated: knee extension, elbow flexion, hip abduction, elbow extension and shoulder abduction. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on muscle strength for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  10. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on Muscle Strength of Shoulder Abduction at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Muscle strength was quantified by means of a handheld dynamometer. The following muscle groups were evaluated: knee extension, elbow flexion, hip abduction, elbow extension and shoulder abduction. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on muscle strength for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  11. Change From Baseline to Week 49 on 4SC for Participants in Sequence 3 Compared to the Natural History Control Group [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    The 4SC quantified the time required for a participant to ascend 4 standard steps. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on 4SC for the natural history control group compared to placebo group (Sequence 3). This MMRM was established to assess the appropriateness on using the natural history control group as a comparator. The natural history control group was established by filtering the CINRG (Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group) natural history database. Participants who met the following requirements at baseline and had evaluable 4SC data on Week 49 were included in this group: 1) age: 6 to <16 years; 2)treatment of glucocorticoid steroids >=6 months prior to baseline and continuous use until the latest visit week; 3) 4SC: 2-15.9 seconds; 4) participants who were ambulatory at baseline; 5) LVEF: >=55% or missing.

  12. Change From Baseline to Week 97 on 4SC for Participants in Sequence 1 Compared to the Natural History Control Group [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 97 ]
    The 4SC quantified the time required for a participant to ascend 4 standard steps. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on 4SC for domagrozumab compared to the natural history control group. The natural history control group was established by filtering the CINRG natural history database. Participants who met the following requirements at baseline and had evaluable 4SC data on Week 97 were included in this group: 1) age: 6 to <16 years; 2) treatment of glucocorticoid steroids >=6 months prior to baseline and continuous use until the latest visit week; 3) 4SC: 2-15.9 seconds; 4 participants who were ambulatory at baseline; 5) LVEF: >=55% or missing.

  13. Change From Baseline to Week 49 on FVC for Participants in Sequence 3 Compared to the Natural History Control Group [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    FVC was measured by spirometry to evaluate respiratory muscle function. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on FVC for the natural history control group compared to placebo group (Sequence 3). MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on FVC for the natural history control group compared to placebo group (Sequence 3). This MMRM was established to assess the appropriateness on using the natural history control group as a comparator. The natural history control group was established by filtering the CINRG natural history database. Participants who met the following requirements at baseline and had evaluable FVC data on Week 49 were included in this group: 1) age: 6 to <16 years; 2)treatment of glucocorticoid steroids >=6 months prior to baseline and continuous use until the latest visit week; 3) 4SC: 2-15.9 seconds; 4) participants who were ambulatory at baseline; 5) LVEF: >=55% or missing.

  14. Change From Baseline to Week 97 on FVC for Participants in Sequence 1 Compared to the Natural History Control Group [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 97 ]
    FVC was measured by spirometry to evaluate respiratory muscle function. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on FVC for domagrozumab compared to the natural history control group. The natural history control group was established by filtering the CINRG natural history database. Participants who met the following requirements at baseline and had evaluable FVC data on Week 97 were included in this group: 1) age: 6 to <16 years; 2) treatment of glucocorticoid steroids >=6 months prior to baseline and continuous use until the latest visit week; 3) 4SC: 2-15.9 seconds; 4 participants who were ambulatory at baseline; 5) LVEF: >=55% or missing.

  15. Change From Baseline to Week 49 on NSAA for Participants in Sequence 3 Compared to the Natural History Control Group [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    The NSAA is a 17-item test that measured gross motor function. A total score could range from 0 to 34 (fully-independent function). MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on NSAA for the natural history control group compared to placebo group (Sequence 3). This MMRM was established to assess the appropriateness on the using natural history control group as a comparator. The natural history control group was established by filtering the CINRG natural history database. Participants who met the following requirements at baseline and had evaluable NSAA data on Week 49 were included in this group: 1) age: 6 to <16 years; 2)treatment of glucocorticoid steroids >=6 months prior to baseline and continuous use until the latest visit week; 3) 4SC: 2-15.9 seconds; 4) participants who were ambulatory at baseline; 5) LVEF: >=55% or missing.

  16. Change From Baseline to Week 97 on NSAA for Participants in Sequence 1 Compared to the Natural History Control Group [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 97 ]
    The NSAA is a 17-item test that measured gross motor function. The total score could range from 0 to 34 (fully-independent function). MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on NSAA for domagrozumab compared to the natural history control group. The natural history control group was established by filtering the CINRG natural history database. Participants who met the following requirements at baseline and had evaluable NSAA data on Week 97 were included in this group: 1) age: 6 to <16 years; 2) treatment of glucocorticoid steroids >=6 months prior to baseline and continuous use until the latest visit week; 3) 4SC: 2-15.9 seconds; 4 participants who were ambulatory at baseline; 5) LVEF: >=55% or missing.

  17. Change From Baseline to Week 49 on 6MWD for Participants in Sequence 3 Compared to the Natural History Control Group [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    6MWD evaluated ambulation ability by measuring the distance walked in 6 minutes. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on 6MWD for the natural history control group compared to placebo group (Sequence 3). This MMRM was established to assess the appropriateness on using the natural history control group as a comparator. The natural history control group was established by filtering the CINRG natural history database. Participants who met the following requirements at baseline and had evaluable 6MWD data on Week 49 were included in this group: 1) age: 6 to <16 years; 2)treatment of glucocorticoid steroids >=6 months prior to baseline and continuous use until the latest visit week; 3) 4SC: 2-15.9 seconds; 4) participants who were ambulatory at baseline; 5) LVEF: >=55% or missing.

  18. Change From Baseline to Week 97 on 6MWD for Participants in Sequence 1 Compared to the Natural History Control Group [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 97 ]
    6MWD evaluated ambulation ability by measuring the distance walked in 6 minutes. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on 6MWD for domagrozumab compared to the natural history control group. The natural history control group was established by filtering the CINRG natural history database. Participants who met the following requirements at baseline and had evaluable 6MWD data on Week 97 were included in this group: 1) age: 6 to <16 years; 2)treatment of glucocorticoid steroids >=6 months prior to baseline and continuous use until the latest visit week; 3) 4SC: 2-15.9 seconds; 4) participants who were ambulatory at baseline; 5) LVEF: >=55% or missing.

  19. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on 4SC at Week 17 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 17 ]
    The 4SC quantified the time required for a participant to ascend 4 standard steps. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  20. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on 4SC at Week 33 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 33 ]
    The 4SC quantified the time required for a participant to ascend 4 standard steps. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds.MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  21. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on 4SC at Week 49 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    The 4SC quantified the time required for a participant to ascend 4 standard steps. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  22. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on FVC at Week 17 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 17 ]
    FVC was measured by spirometry to evaluate respiratory muscle function. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on FVC for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  23. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on FVC at Week 33 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 33 ]
    FVC was measured by spirometry to evaluate respiratory muscle function. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on FVC for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  24. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on FVC at Week 49 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    FVC was measured by spirometry to evaluate respiratory muscle function. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on FVC for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  25. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on NSAA at Week 17 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 17 ]
    The NSAA is a 17-item test that measured gross motor function. Each individual item received a score of 0-unable to perform independently, 1-able to perform with assistance, or 2-able to perform without assistance. A total score was achieved by summing all the individual items. The total score could range from 0 to 34 (fully-independent function). A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  26. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on NSAA at Week 33 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 33 ]
    The NSAA is a 17-item test that measured gross motor function. Each individual item received a score of 0-unable to perform independently, 1-able to perform with assistance, or 2-able to perform without assistance. A total score was achieved by summing all the individual items. The total score could range from 0 to 34 (fully-independent function). A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  27. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on NSAA at Week 49 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    The NSAA is a 17-item test that measured gross motor function. Each individual item received a score of 0-unable to perform independently, 1-able to perform with assistance, or 2-able to perform without assistance. A total score was achieved by summing all the individual items. The total score could range from 0 to 34 (fully-independent function). A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  28. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on PUL Overall Scores at Week 17 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 17 ]
    The PUL was used to assess motor performance of the upper limb. The PUL scale includes 22 items; an entry item defining the starting functional level, and 21 items subdivided into three levels: shoulder (4 items), middle (9 items) and distal (8 items). Scoring options per item may not be uniform and may vary from 0-1 and 0-6, according to the performance, with higher values corresponding to better performance. A total maximum score of 74 is achieved by adding the individual level scores. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline .The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  29. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on PUL Overall Score at Week 33 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 33 ]
    The PUL was used to assess motor performance of the upper limb. The PUL scale includes 22 items; an entry item defining the starting functional level, and 21 items subdivided into three levels: shoulder (4 items), middle (9 items) and distal (8 items).Scoring options per item may not be uniform and may vary from 0-1 and 0-6, according to the performance, with higher values corresponding to better performance. A total maximum score of 74 is achieved by adding the individual level scores. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline.The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  30. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on PUL Overall Score at Week 49 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    The PUL was used to assess motor performance of the upper limb. The PUL scale includes 22 items; an entry item defining the starting functional level, and 21 items subdivided into three levels: shoulder (4 items), middle (9 items) and distal (8 items).Scoring options per item may not be uniform and may vary from 0-1 and 0-6, according to the performance, with higher values corresponding to better performance. A total maximum score of 74 is achieved by adding the individual level scores. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline.The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  31. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on 6MWD at Week 17 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 17 ]
    6MWD evaluated ambulation ability by measuring the distance walked in 6 minutes. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on 6MWD for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  32. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on 6MWD at Week 33 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 33 ]
    6MWD evaluated ambulation ability by measuring the distance walked in 6 minutes. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on 6MWD for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  33. Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo on 6MWD at Week 49 in Pre-specified Subsets [ Time Frame: Baseline, Week 49 ]
    6MWD evaluated ambulation ability by measuring the distance walked in 6 minutes. A subset analysis was performed by categorizing participants into 3 subsets according to the baseline 4SC time: 1) <3.5 seconds, 2)>=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds, 3) >8 seconds. MMRM was used to analyze the change from baseline on 6MWD for domagrozumab compared to placebo in subsets. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  34. Change From Baseline on Muscle Strength at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 in Pre-specified Subset (Baseline 4SC <3.5 Seconds) [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Muscle strength was quantified by means of a handheld dynamometer. The following muscle groups were evaluated: knee extension, elbow flexion, hip abduction, elbow extension and shoulder abduction. Change from baseline on muscle strength in all participants with baseline 4SC <3.5 seconds are presented below.

  35. Change From Baseline on Muscle Strength at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 in Pre-specified Subset (Baseline 4SC >=3.5 Seconds and <=8 Seconds) [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Muscle strength was quantified by means of a handheld dynamometer. The following muscle groups were evaluated: knee extension, elbow flexion, hip abduction, elbow extension and shoulder abduction. Change from baseline on muscle strength in all participants with baseline 4SC >=3.5 seconds and <=8 seconds are presented below.

  36. Change From Baseline on Muscle Strength at Weeks 17, 33 and 49 in Pre-specified Subset (Baseline 4SC >8 Seconds) [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    Muscle strength was quantified by means of a handheld dynamometer. The following muscle groups were evaluated: knee extension, elbow flexion, hip abduction, elbow extension and shoulder abduction. Change from baseline on muscle strength in all participants with baseline 4SC >8 seconds are presented below.

  37. Percent Change From Baseline in Whole Thigh Muscle Volume as Compared to Placebo by Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    The whole thigh muscle volume was measured by the proton density weighted sequence with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which was used to segment the entire thigh region into 3 primary regions for volumetric measure including 1) muscle; 2) inter/intra-muscular fat, 3) subcutaneous fat. MMRM was used to analyze the percent change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  38. Percent Change From Baseline as Compared to Placebo in Whole Thigh Muscle Volume Index by Weeks 17, 33 and 49 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33 and 49 ]
    The thigh muscle volume index was derived from the thigh muscle volume measurements as the fraction of total thigh tissue that was the lean muscle. MMRM was used to analyze the percent change from baseline for domagrozumab compared to placebo. The stratification factor, baseline result, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction were included as fixed effects in the model. Participants were included as a random effect and the model was fit with an unstructured covariance for the repeated measures.

  39. Change From Baseline in Whole Thigh Muscle Volume Through Week 97 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33, 49 and 97 ]
    The whole thigh muscle volume was measured by the proton density weighted sequence with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which was used to segment the entire thigh region into 3 primary regions for volumetric measure including 1) muscle; 2) inter/intra-muscular fat, 3) subcutaneous fat.

  40. Change From Baseline in Whole Thigh Muscle Volume Index Through Week 97 [ Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 17, 33, 49 and 97 ]
    The thigh muscle volume index was derived from the thigh muscle volume measurements as the fraction of total thigh tissue that was the lean muscle.

  41. Concentration of Growth Differentiation Factor 8 (GDF-8) at Time 0 (Pre-dose),(C0(GDF-8) ) [ Time Frame: Predose on Day 1 of Week 1 ]
    GDF-8, also called myostatin, is the target of domagrozumab. C0(GDF-8) was observed directly from data.

  42. Trough Serum Concentration of GDF-8 (Ctrough,(GDF-8)) for Participants Receiving Domagrozumab in Period 1 [ Time Frame: Every 4 weeks on dosing day (at predose, end of 2-hour infusion and 6 hours since start of infusion) from Week 1 to Week 48 ]
    GDF-8, also called myostatin, is the target of domagrozumab. Ctrough,(GDF-8) was observed directly from data.

  43. Ctrough,(GDF-8) for Participants of Sequence 3 in Period 2 [ Time Frame: Every 4 weeks on dosing day (predose, end of 2-hour infusion and 6 hours since start of infusion) from Week 49 to Week 96 ]
    GDF-8, also called myostatin, is the target of domagrozumab. Ctrough,(GDF-8) was observed directly from data.

  44. Trough (Pre-dose) Serum Concentration (Ctrough) of Domagrozumab [ Time Frame: Every 4 weeks on dosing day (predose, end of 2-hour infusion and 6 hours since start of infusion) from Week 1 to Week 96 for Sequence 1; from Week 1 to Week 48 for Sequence 2; from Week 49 to Week 96 for Sequence 3 ]
    Ctrough was observed directly from data.

  45. Maximum Serum Concentration (Cmax) of Domagrozumab [ Time Frame: Every 4 weeks on dosing day (predose, end of 2-hour infusion and 6 hours since start of infusion) from Week 1 to Week 96 for Sequence 1; from Week 1 to Week 48 for Sequence 2; from Week 49 to Week 96 for Sequence 3 ]
    Cmax was observed directly from data.

  46. Time for Cmax (Tmax) of Domagrozumab [ Time Frame: Every 4 weeks on dosing day (predose, end of 2-hour infusion and 6 hours since start of infusion) from Week 1 to Week 96 for Sequence 1; from Week 1 to Week 48 for Sequence 2; from Week 49 to Week 96 for Sequence 3 ]
    Tmax was observed directly from the data.

  47. Terminal Half-life (t1/2) of Domagrozumab for Participants in Sequence 2 After the Last Dose of Domagrozumab [ Time Frame: At predose, end of 2-hour infusion and 6 hours since start of infusion at Week 45 ]
    t1/2 was calculated by Loge(2)/kel, where kel was the terminal phase rate constant calculated by a linear regression of the log-linear concentration-time curve. Participants in Sequence 2 received the last dose of domagrozumab at Week 45.

  48. Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve Over the Dosing Interval Tau (AUCtau) of Domagrozumab [ Time Frame: At predose, end of 2-hour infusion,6 hours and 168 hours since start of infusion on Weeks 1, 13, 17, 29, 33 and 45 ]
    The dosing interval tau was 672 hours (4 weeks). AUCtau was obtained by linear/log trapezoidal method. The AUCtau was assessed to fully characterize PK data and it was only assessed on the first 12 participants enrolled in the study who were required to complete additional PK visits.

  49. Average Serum Concentration Over the Dosing Interval (Cav) of Domagrozumab [ Time Frame: At predose, end of 2-hour infusion, 6 hours and 168 hours since start of infusion on Weeks 1, 13, 17, 29, 33 and 45 ]
    Cav was calculated by AUCtau/tau. The Cav was assessed to fully characterize PK data and it was only assessed on the first 12 participants enrolled in the study who were required to complete additional PK visits.

  50. Clearance (CL) of Domagrozumab [ Time Frame: At predose, end of 2-hour infusion, 6 hours and 168 hours since start of infusion on Weeks 13, 29 and 45 ]
    CL was calculated by Dose/AUCtau. The CL was assessed to fully characterize PK data and it was only assessed on the first 12 participants enrolled in the study who were required to complete additional PK visits.

  51. Volume of Distribution at Steady State (Vss) of Domagrozumab for Participants in Sequence 2 Required for Additional PK Assessment [ Time Frame: At predose, end of 2-hour infusion, 6 hours and 168 hours since start of infusion on Week 45 ]
    Vss was calculated by CL*MRT, where MRT was the mean residence time. Vss was assessed to fully characterize PK data.

  52. Number of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADA) Development by Week 97 [ Time Frame: Baseline, every 4 weeks from Week 5 to Week 97 visit or early termination ]
    The criterion for positive result of ADA samples was ADA titer >=1.88.


Other Outcome Measures:
  1. Area Under the Curve From Time Zero to Last Quantifiable Serum Concentration (AUClast) of Domagrozumab [ Time Frame: At predose, end of 2-hour infusion, 6 hours and 168 hours since start of infusion on Weeks 1, 13, 17, 29, 33 and 45 ]
    AUClast was calculated by linear/log trapezoidal method. AUCtau was obtained by linear/log trapezoidal method. AUClast was assessed to fully characterize PK data and it was only assessed on the first 12 participants enrolled in the study who were required to complete additional PK visits.



Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   6 Years to 15 Years   (Child)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   Male
Gender Based Eligibility:   Yes
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Ambulatory boys age 6 to <16 years old (at the time of randomization), diagnosed with DMD. Diagnosis must be confirmed in subject's medical history and by genetic testing obtained during routine clinical care for diagnostic purposes as reported from an appropriate regulated laboratory using a clinically validated genetic test (genetic testing is not provided by the sponsor).
  2. Subjects who are able to perform the 4 stair climb in > or = 0.33 but < or =1.6 stairs/second.
  3. Subjects must be receiving glucocorticosteroids for a minimum of 6 months prior to signing informed consent. There should be no significant change (>0.2 mg/kg) in dosage or dose regimen (not related to body weight change) for at least 3 months immediately prior to signing the informed consent and a reasonable expectation that dosage and dosing regimen will not change significantly for the duration of the study.
  4. Adequate hepatic and renal function on screening laboratory assessments.
  5. No underlying disposition for iron accumulation on screening laboratory assessments.
  6. Iron content estimate on the screening liver MRI is within the normal range.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Subjects with known cognitive impairment or behavioral issues that would impede the ability to follow instructions.
  2. History of major surgical procedure within 6 weeks of signing the informed consent or planned surgery during the study.
  3. Any injury which may impact functional testing. Previous injuries must be fully healed prior to consenting. Prior lower limb fractures must be fully healed and at least 3 months from injury date.
  4. Presence or history of other musculoskeletal or neurologic disease or somatic disorder not related to DMD including pulmonary and cardiac disease.
  5. Compromised cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction <55% as determined on a screening cardiac MRI or echocardiogram). Subjects may be receiving ACE (angiotensin converting enzyme) inhibitors or beta blockers, ARB (angiotensin II receptor antagonist) or aldosterone blocker/thiazide diuretic; however they must have initiated treatment more than 3 months prior to screening to ensure stable therapy.
  6. Evidence or history of clinically significant hematological, renal, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular (including uncontrolled hypertension), hepatic, neurologic, or allergic disease (including drug allergies, but excluding untreated, asymptomatic, seasonal allergies at time of dosing).
  7. Documented history of iron overload including hemochromatosis, beta thalassemia major, beta thalassemia intermedia or hemolytic anemia.
  8. Unwilling or unable (eg, metal implants, requires sedation) to undergo examination with closed MRI without sedation.
  9. Participation in other studies involving investigational drug(s) for a minimum of 30 days or within 5 half lives (whichever is longer) prior to signing the informed consent and/or during study participation.
  10. Current or prior treatment with anti-myostatin, exon skipping, nonsense mutation targeted therapies ever or more than 30 days of treatment with utrophin modifiers and treatment with utrophin modifiers within 30 days prior ot signing the informed consent and/or during study participation.
  11. Current or prior treatment within the past 3 months with androgens or human growth hormone.
  12. Current treatment with immunosuppressant therapies (other than glucocorticoid steroids), aminoglycosides (eg, gentamicin), multi vitamins with iron and iron supplements and other investigational therapies (including idebenone).

Information from the National Library of Medicine

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): NCT02310763


  Hide Study Locations
Locations
Layout table for location information
United States, California
Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center
Los Angeles, California, United States, 90095
Ronald Reagan UCLA Pharmacy
Los Angeles, California, United States, 90095
UCLA (David Geffen School of Medicine)
Los Angeles, California, United States, 90095
University of California, Davis Medical Center
Sacramento, California, United States, 95817
United States, Colorado
Children's Hospital Colorado
Aurora, Colorado, United States, 80045
United States, Florida
Shriners Hospitals for Children - Tampa
Tampa, Florida, United States, 33612
United States, Illinois
Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60611
United States, Iowa
University of Iowa ICTS
Iowa City, Iowa, United States, 52242
United States, Kansas
KU Clinical Research Center, Clinical and Translational Science Unit(CTSU)
Fairway, Kansas, United States, 66205
University of Kansas-Clinical Research Center, Investigational Pharmacy
Fairway, Kansas, United States, 66205
University of Kansas Medical Center, Landon Center on Aging
Kansas City, Kansas, United States, 66160
University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City, Kansas, United States, 66160
United States, Maryland
Kennedy Krieger Institute Out-patient center
Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21205
Kennedy Krieger Institute
Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21205
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21287
Johns Hopkins Investigational Drug Service
Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21287
United States, Massachusetts
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02114
United States, Minnesota
University of Minnesota Masonic Children's Hospital
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, 55455
United States, Missouri
St Louis Children's Hospital
Saint Louis, Missouri, United States, 63110
United States, North Carolina
Duke University Medical Center,Lenox Baker Children's Hospital
Durham, North Carolina, United States, 27705
Duke University, Investigational Drug Pharmacy
Durham, North Carolina, United States, 27710
United States, Ohio
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
Cincinnati, Ohio, United States, 45229
United States, Pennsylvania
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 19104
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 15224
United States, Utah
Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84108
Utah Center for Advanced Imaging and Research (UCAIR)
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84108
Investigational Drug Services
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84112
University of Utah, Department of Neurology
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84112
University of Utah Medical Center
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84132
University of Utah School of Medicine
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84132
Australia, Queensland
Lady Cilento Children's Hospital
South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4101
Bulgaria
Clinical Densitometry and Bone Metabolic Disease Department, General and Clinical Pathology Clinic
Sofia, Bulgaria, 1431
Hospital Pharmacy, UMHAT Alexandrovska
Sofia, Bulgaria, 1431
Imaging Diagnostic Clinic,UMHAT Alexandrovska
Sofia, Bulgaria, 1431
Neurology Disease Clinic,UMHAT Alexandrovska
Sofia, Bulgaria, 1431
UMHAT Alexandrovska Cardiology Department,Internal Diseases Propaedeutic Clinic
Sofia, Bulgaria, 1431
Canada, Alberta
Alberta Children's Hospital
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T3B 6A8
Canada, British Columbia
UBC Children's and Women's Health Center of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6H3V4
Canada, Ontario
Children's Hospital- London Health Sciences Centre
London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5W9
Canada, Quebec
CHU Sainte-Justine
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 1C5
Italy
UOC Farmacia-Istituto Gianna Gaslini, Istituto Pediatrico di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
Genova, Italy, 16147
UOC Medicina Fisica Riabilitativa
Genova, Italy, 16147
UOC Neurologia Pediatrica e Malattie Muscolari
Genova, Italy, 16147
UOC Radiologia-Istituto Gianna. Gaslini, Istituto Pediatrico di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere
Genova, Italy, 16147
UOS Dipartimentale Endocrinologia Clinica Sperimentale
Genova, Italy, 16147
Dipartimento Pediatrico Universitario-Ospedaliero Endocrinologia
Rome, Italy, 00150
Farmacia Ospedaliera, IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Padiglione Sant'Onofrio
Rome, Italy, 00165
Malattie Neuromuscolari e Neurodegenerative, IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù
Rome, Italy, 00165
Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù - Centro Trial, DPUO - Padiglione Salviati
Rome, Italy, 00165
U.O.C Farmacia
Rome, Italy, 00168
U.O.C. Neuropsichiatria Infantile, Fondazione Policlinico
Rome, Italy, 00168
Japan
Hyogo college of medicine hospital
Hyogo, Japan, 663-8501
National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry
Tokyo, Japan, 187-8551
Poland
Samodzielny Publiczny Centralny Szpital Kliniczny w Warszawie Apteka Szpitalna Blok F
Warszawa, Poland, 02-097
Samodzielny Publiczny Centralny Szpital Kliniczny w Warszawie, I Katedra i Klinika Kardiologii
Warszawa, Poland, 02-097
Samodzielny Publiczny Centralny Szpital Kliniczny w Warszawie, II Zaklad Radiologii Klinicznej
Warszawa, Poland, 02-097
Samodzielny Publiczny Centralny Szpital Kliniczny w Warszawie, Klinika Neurologii
Warszawa, Poland, 02-097
Samodzielny Publiczny Centralny Szpital Kliniczny w Warszawie, Laboratorium Centralne
Warszawa, Poland, 02-097
MTZ Clinical Research Sp.z o.o.
Warszawa, Poland, 02-106
United Kingdom
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust
Liverpool, United Kingdom, L12 2AP
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust
Liverpool, United Kingdom, L14 5AB
Dubowitz Neuromuscular Centre Institute of Child Health
London, United Kingdom, WC1N 3JH
Great Ormond Street Hospital
London, United Kingdom, WC1N 3JH
Institute of Genetic Medicine, Muscle Team
Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 3BZ
Royal Victoria Infirmary Research Pharmacy
Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 4LP
Clinical Research Facility
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 4LP
Sponsors and Collaborators
Pfizer
Investigators
Layout table for investigator information
Study Director: Pfizer CT.gov Call Center Pfizer
  Study Documents (Full-Text)

Documents provided by Pfizer:
Study Protocol  [PDF] August 15, 2016
Statistical Analysis Plan  [PDF] January 11, 2018


Additional Information:
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Pfizer
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02310763     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: B5161002
2014-002072-92 ( EudraCT Number )
First Posted: December 8, 2014    Key Record Dates
Results First Posted: July 23, 2019
Last Update Posted: July 23, 2019
Last Verified: June 2019
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD: Yes
Plan Description: Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data and related study documents (e.g. protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), Clinical Study Report (CSR)) upon request from qualified researchers, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions. Further details on Pfizer's data sharing criteria and process for requesting access can be found at: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical_trials/trial_data_and_results/data_requests.
URL: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical_trials/trial_data_and_results/data_requests

Layout table for additional information
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: Yes
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No

Keywords provided by Pfizer:
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, myostatin

Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Layout table for MeSH terms
Muscular Dystrophies
Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne
Muscular Disorders, Atrophic
Muscular Diseases
Musculoskeletal Diseases
Neuromuscular Diseases
Nervous System Diseases
Genetic Diseases, Inborn
Genetic Diseases, X-Linked