Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 21:17:17562864241279125.
doi: 10.1177/17562864241279125. eCollection 2024.

Maintenance of zilucoplan efficacy in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis up to 24 weeks: a model-informed analysis

Affiliations

Maintenance of zilucoplan efficacy in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis up to 24 weeks: a model-informed analysis

Guillemette de la Borderie et al. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. .

Abstract

Background: Clinical efficacy of zilucoplan has been demonstrated in a 12-week, placebo-controlled, phase III study in patients with acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG). However, placebo-controlled zilucoplan data past 12 weeks are not available.

Objectives: Predict the treatment effect of zilucoplan versus control (placebo or standard of care) in patients with gMG up to 24 weeks.

Design: A model-informed analysis (MIA) within a Bayesian framework.

Methods: Part 1 of the MIA comprised a control meta-regression using aggregate data on control response over time from randomised studies and a national myasthenia gravis (MG) registry. In Part 2, a combined Bayesian analysis of individual patient-level data from the phase II (NCT03315130), RAISE (NCT04115293) and RAISE-XT (NCT04225871) studies of zilucoplan was conducted using posterior distributions from Part 1 as informative priors. Population mean treatment effect in the change from baseline (CFB) at week 24 in MG-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and quantitative MG (QMG) scores for zilucoplan versus control were assessed.

Results: At week 24, the predicted mean CFB in MG-ADL score was -4.55 (95% credible interval: -6.04, -3.13) with zilucoplan versus -2.00 (-3.35, -0.64) with control (difference: -2.55 [-3.76, -1.40]). The probability of a favourable treatment effect as measured by MG-ADL score at week 24 with zilucoplan versus control was >99.9%. There was an 82.8% probability that the difference in the predicted mean CFB in MG-ADL score at week 24 was greater than the clinically meaningful threshold (⩾2.0-point improvement). Comparable results were observed with QMG.

Conclusion: This MIA demonstrates the maintenance of efficacy with zilucoplan versus control up to 24 weeks. Through combining real-world evidence with data from randomised studies, this novel method to estimate long-term treatment efficacy facilitated reduced exposure to placebo in the phase III RAISE study. This methodology could be used to reduce the length of future placebo-controlled studies.

Keywords: Bayesian; C5; complement inhibitor; external comparator; meta-regression analysis; model-informed analysis; myasthenia gravis; zilucoplan.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Evolution of predicted mean change from baseline (and associated 95% CrI) in MG-ADL score through week 24. Primary analysis: Data from the double-blind studies, including RAISE-XT data for patients randomised to zilucoplan in the double-blind studies, were included in Part 2. A linear model with log time using the historical prior. Sensitivity analysis 1: Placebo data from the phase II study were included in Part 1. Data from RAISE only were included in Part 2. A linear model with log time using the historical prior. CrI, credible interval; MG-ADL, myasthenia gravis activities of daily living.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Distribution of the difference between zilucoplan and control in predicted mean changes from baseline to week 24 in MG-ADL score. A negative value in the difference (zilucoplan minus control) corresponds to an improvement in MG-ADL score. Primary analysis: Data from the double-blind studies, including RAISE-XT data for patients randomised to zilucoplan in the double-blind studies, were included in Part 2. A linear model with log time using the historical prior. CrI, credible interval; MG-ADL, myasthenia gravis activities of daily living.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Evolution of predicted mean change from baseline (and associated 95% CrI) in QMG score through week 24. Primary analysis: Data from the double-blind studies, including RAISE-XT data for patients randomised to zilucoplan in the double-blind studies, were included in Part 2. A linear model with log time using the historical prior. Sensitivity analysis 1: Placebo data from the phase II study were included in Part 1. Data from RAISE only were included in Part 2. A linear model with log time using the historical prior. CrI, credible interval; QMG, quantitative myasthenia gravis.

References

    1. Gilhus NE, Tzartos S, Evoli A, et al. Myasthenia gravis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2019; 5: 30. - PubMed
    1. Howard JF., Jr. Myasthenia gravis: the role of complement at the neuromuscular junction. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2018; 1412: 113–128. - PubMed
    1. Cutter G, Xin H, Aban I, et al. Cross-sectional analysis of the Myasthenia Gravis Patient Registry: disability and treatment. Muscle Nerve 2019; 60: 707–715. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Suh J, Goldstein JM, Nowak RJ. Clinical characteristics of refractory myasthenia gravis patients. Yale J Biol Med 2013; 86: 255–260. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dalakas MC. Role of complement, anti-complement therapeutics, and other targeted immunotherapies in myasthenia gravis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2022; 18: 691–701. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources