Despite this, treatment with the agent was associated with clinically significant improvements in cognitive performance, as assessed through Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (P <.05), and improvement in the 10-meter walk/run test (P = .054). Treated patients also saw significant reductions in creatine phosphokinase, a widely used biomarker of skeletal and cardiac muscle integrity (P <.05). Notably, 98% of patients opted to continue treatment in the open-label extension (OLE), and 85% of patients opted to continue treatment at the conclusion of the 1-year OLE study.
"The results of the REACH-CDM Study showed measures of efficacy benefit across multiple symptom areas, and we are very excited that this clinical development program will continue to move forward," investigator Hanns Lochmuller, MD, PhD, FAAN, professor of neurology at University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, said in a statement.1 "We remain very hopeful that this investigational therapy can have a transformative impact on the health of patients living with this ultra-rare, severe muscular dystrophy in the years ahead."
In the study, a composite statistical analysis of outcomes assessing motor skills, muscle strength, cognitive ability, daily living skills, and biomarker data revealed statistically significant benefits through treatment with AMO-02 vs placebo (P <.05). Of note, the benefits and clinical improvement seen in treated patients were correlated with pharmacokinetic parameters that showed increasing plasma levels of AMO-02. Overall, more participants showed a positive response following AMO-02 treatment than placebo on 10 of the 12 quantifiable measures.
Following announcement of the results, Mike Snape, PhD, chief scientific officer of AMO Pharma, sat down in an interview with NeurologyLive® to discuss how AMO-02 works to address the underlying causes of congenital myotonic dystrophy. He also talked about the key safety findings from the clinical trial, and how the therapy differentiated itself from placebo. Additionally, Snape spoke about why the rating scale instruments used were challenging to interpret when assessing the therapy's efficacy, along with other tests that provided evidence of its effectiveness.