Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pooled risdiplam (EVRYSDI®) safety data were analysed from 465 symptomatic patients with Types 1–3 SMA in the FIREFISH (NCT02913482), SUNFISH (NCT02908685) and JEWELFISH (NCT03032172) studies (overall exposure: 1,292 patient-years [PY]). Data were also collected from 18 presymptomatic patients in RAIN- BOWFISH (NCT03779334).At the clinical cut-off dates, most treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were mild; none led to treatment withdrawal in any trial (N=483). In presymptomatic patients, the most common AEs per 100PY were vomiting (48.24), teething and pyrexia (41.35 each), nasal congestion (34.46) and diarrhoea and viral infection (27.57 each). In symptomatic patients, the overall rate of AEs decreased with continued treatment; there was decline in the rate of gastrointestinal AEs during the first 4 weeks of treatment and no observable trend in the rate of infection AEs in the first 6 months. In symptomatic patients, serious AEs (SAEs) were more frequent in Type 1 SMA. The rate of SAEs declined in Type 1 SMA but remained stable in Types 2/3 SMA. No SAEs were observed in presymptomatic patients.These data will add to the understanding of the long-term safety profile of risdiplam. Studies are ongoing; safety data will be published annually until patients complete 5 years of treatment.

Risdiplam is an orally administered therapy that modifies pre-mRNA splicing of the survival of motor neuron 2 (SMN2) gene and is approved for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy. The FIREFISH study is investigating the safety and efficacy of risdiplam in treated infants with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy versus historical controls. The primary endpoint of part 2 of the FIREFISH study showed that infants with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy attained the ability to sit without support for at least 5 s after 12 months of treatment. Here, we report on the safety and efficacy of risdiplam in FIREFISH part 2 over 24 months of treatment. FIREFISH is an ongoing, multicentre, open-label, two-part study. In FIREFISH part 2, eligible infants (aged 1–7 months at enrolment, with a genetically confirmed diagnosis of spinal muscular atrophy, and two SMN2 gene copies) were enrolled in 14 hospitals in ten countries across Europe, North America, South America, and Asia. Risdiplam was orally administered once daily at 0·2 mg/kg for infants between 5 months and 2 years of age; once an infant reached 2 years of age, the dose was increased to 0·25 mg/kg. Infants younger than 5 months started at 0·04 mg/kg (infants between 1 month and 3 months old) or 0·08 mg/kg (infants between 3 months and 5 months old), and this starting dose was adjusted to 0·2 mg/kg once pharmacokinetic data were available for each infant. The primary and secondary endpoints included in the statistical hierarchy and assessed at month 12 have been reported previously. Here we present the remainder of the secondary efficacy endpoints that were included in the statistical hierarchy at month 24: the ability to sit without support for at least 30 s, to stand alone, and to walk alone, as assessed by the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, third edition gross motor subscale. These three endpoints were compared with a performance criterion of 5% that was defined based on the natural history of type 1 spinal muscular atrophy; the results were considered statistically significant if the lower limit of the two-sided 90% CI was above the 5% threshold. FIREFISH is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02913482. Recruitment is closed; the 36-month extension period of the study is ongoing. Between March 13 and Nov 19, 2018, 41 infants were enrolled in FIREFISH part 2. After 24 months of treatment, 38 infants were ongoing in the study and 18 infants (44% [90% CI 31–58]) were able to sit without support for at least 30 s (p<0·0001 compared with the performance criterion derived from the natural history of untreated infants with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy). No infants could stand alone (0 [90% CI 0–7]) or walk alone (0 [0–7]) after 24 months of treatment. The most frequently reported adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection, in 22 infants (54%); the most common serious adverse events were pneumonia in 16 infants (39%) and respiratory distress in three infants (7%). Treatment with risdiplam over 24 months resulted in continual improvements in motor function and achievement of developmental motor milestones. The FIREFISH open-label extension phase will provide additional evidence regarding long-term safety and efficacy of risdiplam. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Risdiplam is a once-daily oral, survival of motor neuron 2 ( SMN2 ) splicing modifier approved for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). JEWELFISH (NCT03032172) investigated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) relationship of risdiplam in non-treatment-naïve patients with SMA. JEWELFISH enrolled adult and pediatric patients ( N  = 174) with confirmed diagnosis of 5q-autosomal recessive SMA who had previously received treatment with nusinersen ( n  = 76), onasemnogene abeparvovec ( n  = 14), olesoxime ( n  = 71), or were enrolled in the MOONFISH study (NCT02240355) of the splicing modifier RG7800 ( n  = 13). JEWELFISH was an open-label study with all participants scheduled to receive risdiplam. The most common adverse event (AE) was pyrexia (42 patients, 24%) and the most common serious AE (SAE) was pneumonia (5 patients, 3%). The rate of AEs and SAEs decreased by > 50% from the first to the second year of treatment, and there were no treatment-related AEs that led to withdrawal from treatment. An increase in SMN protein in blood was observed following risdiplam treatment and sustained over 24 months of treatment irrespective of previous treatment. Exploratory efficacy assessments of motor function showed an overall stabilization in mean total scores as assessed by the 32-item Motor Function Measure, Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale—Expanded, and Revised Upper Limb Module. The safety profile of risdiplam in JEWELFISH was consistent with previous clinical trials of risdiplam in treatment-naïve patients. Exploratory efficacy outcomes are reported but it should be noted that the main aim of JEWELFISH was to assess safety and PK/PD, and the study was not designed for efficacy analysis. Trial registration The study was registered (NCT03032172) on ClinicalTrials.gov on January 24, 2017; First patient enrolled: March 3, 2017.

Risdiplam is a centrally and peripherally distributed oral survival of motor neuron 2 (SMN2) pre mRNA splicing modifier that increases the levels of functional SMN protein. Risdiplam (EVRYSDI™) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), aged 2 months and older. The risdiplam clinical development programme consists of four studies in a broad population of individuals with SMA.FIREFISH (NCT02913482) and SUNFISH (NCT02908685) are two-part studies assessing safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and efficacy in infants with Type 1 SMA and patients with Type 2/3 SMA, respectively. JEWELFISH (NCT0302172) assesses safety, tolerability, PK and PD in patients with SMA who previously received RG7800 (R06885247), nusinersen (SPINRAZA®), olesoxime or onasemno- gene abeparvovec-xioi (ZOLGENSMA®). RAINBOWFISH (NCT03779334) assesses efficacy, safety, PK and PD in infants with genetically diagnosed and presymptomatic SMA.Pooled analyses of FIREFISH and SUNFISH Parts 1 and 2 and JEWELFISH were conducted to determine the long-term safety profile of risdiplam. At the data-cut (15th January 2020) no treatment-related safety findings led to withdrawal from up to 39 months’ risdiplam treatment in 465 patients. Here we will present updated pooled safety analyses for the risdiplam studies.g.baranello@ucl.ac.uk

In infants with genetically diagnosed spinal muscular atrophy, risdiplam therapy before the development of symptoms led to improved motor milestones and survival at 12 and 24 months. Treatment-related adverse events were mild.

Risdiplam (EVRYSDI®) is a centrally and peripherally distributed, oral survival of motor neuron 2 (SMN2) premRNA splicing modifier approved by the EMA and MHRA for the treatment of patients aged ≥2 months, with a clinical diagnosis of Type 1, 2 or 3 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) or 1–4 copies of SMN2.Safety data were pooled from three studies within the risdiplam clinical development programme:FIREFISH (NCT02913482) assesses safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and efficacy of risdiplam in infants with Type 1 SMASUNFISH (NCT02908685) assesses safety, tolerability, PK, PD and efficacy of risdiplam in patients with Types 2/3 SMAJEWELFISH (NCT03032172) assesses safety, tolerability, PK and PD of risdiplam in patients who previously received RG7800 (RO6885247), nusinersen (SPINRAZA®), olesoxime or onasemnogene abeparvovec (ZOLGENSMA®).Pooled analyses from FIREFISH, SUNFISH and JEWELFISH showed no treatment-related safety findings leading to withdrawal from risdiplam in 465 patients treated for up to 38.9 months (data-cut-offs: 14 November 2019, 15 January 2020 and 31 January 2020, respectively). The differences in adverse event profiles between Type 1 and Types 2/3 SMA populations appeared to be driven by the severity of the underlying disease. Here we will present updated pooled safety analyses for the risdiplam studies.

Objective Evaluation of ophthalmologic safety with focus on retinal safety in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treated with risdiplam (EVRYSDI®), a survival of motor neuron 2 splicing modifier associated with retinal toxicity in monkeys. Risdiplam was approved recently for the treatment of patients with SMA, aged ≥ 2 months in the United States, and is currently under Health Authority review in the EU. Methods Subjects included patients with SMA aged 2 months–60 years enrolled in the FIREFISH, SUNFISH, and JEWELFISH clinical trials for risdiplam. Ophthalmologic assessments, including functional assessments (age‐appropriate visual acuity and visual field) and imaging (spectral domain optical coherence tomography [SD‐OCT], fundus photography, and fundus autofluorescence [FAF]), were conducted at baseline and every 2–6 months depending on study and assessment. SD‐OCT, FAF, fundus photography, and threshold perimetry were evaluated by an independent, masked reading center. Adverse events (AEs) were reported throughout the study. Results A total of 245 patients receiving risdiplam were assessed. Comprehensive, high‐quality, ophthalmologic monitoring assessing retinal structure and visual function showed no retinal structural or functional changes. In the youngest patients, SD‐OCT findings of normal retinal maturation were observed. AEs involving eye disorders were not suggestive of risdiplam‐induced toxicity and resolved with ongoing treatment. Interpretation Extensive ophthalmologic monitoring conducted in studies in patients with SMA confirmed that risdiplam does not induce ophthalmologic toxicity in pediatric or adult patients with SMA at the therapeutic dose. These results suggest that safety ophthalmologic monitoring is not needed in patients receiving risdiplam, as also reflected in the United States Prescribing Information for risdiplam.

Background As recommended in the current prescribing information, rituximab infusions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) take 4.25 hours for the first infusion and 3.25 hours for subsequent infusions, which is a burden on patients and the health care system. We therefore evaluated the safety of infusing rituximab at a faster rate for an infusion period of 2 hours in patients with RA. Methods Patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF who were rituximab-naive or -experienced received 2 courses of rituximab: Infusion 1 (Day 1) was administered over the standard 4.25 hours, and Infusions 2 (Day 15), 3 (Day 168) and 4 (Day 182) were administered over a faster 2-hour period. The primary endpoint was incidence of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) associated with Infusion 2. Results Of the 351 patients enrolled, 87% and 13% were rituximab-naive and -experienced, respectively. The incidence (95% CI) of IRRs associated with Infusion 1 was 16.2% (12.5%, 20.5%) and consistent with weighted historical incidence of 20.7% (19.4%, 22.1%). The incidence (95% CI) of IRRs associated with Infusions 2, 3, and 4 compared with respective weighted historical incidences at the standard infusion rate was 6.5% (4.1%, 9.7%) vs 8.1% (7.2%, 9.1%); 5.9% (3.5%, 9.3%) vs 11.5% (10.3%, 12.8%); and 0.7 (0.1%, 2.6%) vs 5.0% (4.2%, 6.0%), respectively. All IRRs were grade 1 or 2, except for 3 grade 3 IRRs associated with Infusion 1 and 2 grade 3 IRRs associated with Infusion 2. Four patients experienced a total of 5 grade 3 IRRs; 3 of these patients continued on to received subsequent infusions at the faster rate. There were no serious IRRs. Conclusion This study demonstrated that rituximab can be administered at the faster infusion rate at the second and subsequent infusions without increasing the rate or severity of IRRs.

Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) is the gold standard to delineate surgical targets in focal drug-resistant epilepsy. SEEG uses electrodes placed directly into the brain to identify the seizure-onset zone (SOZ). However, its major constraint is limited brain coverage, potentially leading to misidentification of the ‘true’ SOZ. Here, we propose a framework to assess adequate SEEG sampling by coupling epileptic biomarkers with their spatial distribution and measuring the system’s response to a perturbation of this coupling. We demonstrate that the system’s response is strongest in well-sampled patients when virtually removing the measured SOZ. We then introduce the spatial perturbation map, a tool that enables qualitative assessment of the implantation coverage. Probability modelling reveals a higher likelihood of well-implanted SOZs in seizure-free patients or non-seizure free patients with incomplete SOZ resections, compared to non-seizure-free patients with complete resections. This highlights the framework’s value in sparing patients from unsuccessful surgeries resulting from poor SEEG coverage. Stereo-EEG implantation suffers from limited spatial coverage, leading to potential missampling of the ‘true’ seizure-onset zone. The authors develop a framework to evaluate implantations based on spatial distribution of epileptic spike-gamma activity.