| Literature DB >> 27042680 |
Aya Narita1, Kentarou Shirai1, Shinji Itamura1, Atsue Matsuda1, Akiko Ishihara2, Kumi Matsushita2, Chisako Fukuda3, Norika Kubota4, Rumiko Takayama5, Hideo Shigematsu5, Anri Hayashi6, Tomohiro Kumada6, Kotaro Yuge7, Yoriko Watanabe7, Saori Kosugi8, Hiroshi Nishida8, Yukiko Kimura8, Yusuke Endo9, Katsumi Higaki10, Eiji Nanba10, Yoko Nishimura1, Akiko Tamasaki1, Masami Togawa1, Yoshiaki Saito1, Yoshihiro Maegaki1, Kousaku Ohno1, Yoshiyuki Suzuki11.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gaucher disease (GD) is a lysosomal storage disease characterized by a deficiency of glucocerebrosidase. Although enzyme-replacement and substrate-reduction therapies are available, their efficacies in treating the neurological manifestations of GD are negligible. Pharmacological chaperone therapy is hypothesized to offer a new strategy for treating the neurological manifestations of this disease. Specifically, ambroxol, a commonly used expectorant, has been proposed as a candidate pharmacological chaperone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and neurological efficacy of ambroxol in patients with neuronopathic GD.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27042680 PMCID: PMC4774255 DOI: 10.1002/acn3.292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol ISSN: 2328-9503 Impact factor: 4.511
Figure 1Overview of the dosing regimen for each patient. Ambroxol administration was initiated with a starting dose of 3 mg/kg/day divided into three equal doses in the first three patients (patients 1, 2, and 3), because safety information in humans about long‐term high‐dose ambroxol administration was limited. The dose was subsequently increased in increments of 3 mg/kg to reach the target doses (25 mg/kg/day or a maximum dose of 1300 mg/day) over several months to years. For the remaining two patients, ambroxol was initiated at 9 mg/kg/day in patient 4 or 25 mg/kg/day in patient 5. ERT and concomitant medications were continued during the study.
Figure 2Chaperone effect of ambroxol on mutant GCase activities in GD fibroblasts. Primary skin fibroblasts derived from each patient were incubated with the indicated concentrations of ambroxol for 4 days. In all panels, the data were expressed as the relative increase in GCase activity in the presence of ambroxol compared with that in untreated cells. The results represent the mean ± SEM of three independent experiments. Statistically significant differences between the treated and untreated fibroblasts were elicited, using the Mann–Whitney U‐test. *P < 0.05.
Overview of clinical characteristics of patients at initiation of treatment
| Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | Patient 4 | Patient 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (sex) | 28 years (female) | 20 years (female) | 15 years (female) | 3 years (female) | 25 years (female) |
| Genotype | N188S/G193W | N188S/? | N188S/? | F213I/RecNciI | D409H/IVS10‐1 |
| Phenotype | GD3 | GD3 | GD3 | GD2 | GD3 |
| Age at diagnosis | 20 years | 19 years | 14 years | 11 months | 3 years |
| First neurological symptom (age) | PME (12 years) | PME (7 years) | PME (8 years) | HSIF, head thrusting (3 months) | Apneic spells (6 months) |
| Presenting symptoms |
Bedridden (since 20 years) |
Unable to sit without support |
Barely standing with support for a short time only |
Bedridden |
Bedridden (since 18 years) |
| Communication | Unable to utter words | Communicates well | Communicates well | Unable to utter words | Communicates well |
| Wechsler Scale | NA | VIQ: 59, PIQ: NA (due to myoclonus) | VIQ: 79, PIQ: 62 (poor study due to myoclonus) | NA | VIQ: 55, PIQ: NA (due to myoclonus and dystonia) |
| Myoclonus | Myoclonus of the face(at rest) | Myoclonus of the limbs (at rest/with action) | Myoclonus of the trunk and limbs (at rest/with action) | Generalized myoclonus (at rest) | Myoclonus of the limbs and face (at rest) |
| Seizures (frequency) | MGSE (daily, uncountable) | Myoclonic seizures with falling (daily, uncountable)GTCs (4.8 days/28 days) | GTCs (26 days/28 days) | Tonic (daily, uncountable)GCSE (3 times/year) | GTCs (12 days/28 days) |
| Oculomotor abnormalities | Gaze palsy in all directions | HSIF | HSIF | Gaze palsy in all directions | HSIF and VGP |
| SEP at baseline | Disappeared cortical waves (N18, N20, N30) | Giant SEP | Giant SEP | Prolonged latency (N18, N20) | Normal |
| VEP at baseline | Giant VEP | normal | normal | normal | Giant VEP |
| Prior treatments |
ERT (for 8 years) |
ERT (for 4 months) |
ERT (for 4 months) |
ERT (for 2 years) |
BMT (at 4 years) |
AED, antiepileptic drug; BMT, bone marrow transplantation; CBZ, carbamazepine; CZP, clonazepam; DZP, diazepam; ERT, enzyme replacement therapy; GTCs, generalized tonic‐clonic seizures; GCSE, generalized convulsive status epilepticus; HSIF, horizontal saccadic initiation failure; LEV, levetiracetam; MGSE, myoclonic‐generalized status epilepticus; NA, not available; NZP, nitrazepam; PB, phenobarbital; PIQ, performance IQ; PME, progressive myoclonus epilepsy; SEP, somatosensory evoked potential; TPM, topiramate; VEP, visual evoked potential; VGB, vigabatrin; VGP, vertical gaze palsy; VIQ, verbal IQ; VPA, sodium valproate; ZNS, zonisamide.
Systemic disease parameters and safety variables
| Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | Patient 4 | Patient 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hemoglobin, g/dL (RV: 11.0–15.0) | |||||
| Baseline | 13.8 | 13.1 | 13.4 | 12.0 | 12.8 |
| Posttreatment | 13.2 | 12.5 | 13.9 | 13.2 | 13.6 |
| Platelets, ×109/L (RV: 12.5–34.3) | |||||
| Baseline | 18.5 | 11.5 | 11.2 | 19.0 | 12.2 |
| Posttreatment | 17.0 | 7.1 | 9.4 | 18.4 | 18.8 |
| Angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE), U/L (RV: 8.3–21.4) | |||||
| Baseline | 8.2 | 9.8 | 13.1 | 46.4 | 8.7 |
| Posttreatment | 7.8 | 7.0 | 8.8 | 19.2 | 8.5 |
| Uric acid, mg/dL (RV: 2.3–7.0) | |||||
| Baseline | 2.6 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 4.7 | 2.0 |
| Posttreatment | 0.7 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 3.7 |
| QTc interval (Fridericia), ms | |||||
| Baseline | 370 | 402 | 404 | 421 | 413 |
| Posttreatment (peak) | 401 | 387 | 394 | 402 | 435 |
RV, reference values. The effects of treatment were analyzed at the following times: patient 1, month 48; patients 2 and 3, month 36; patient 4, month 24; and patient 5, month 6.
Pharmacokinetics and biochemical efficacy of ambroxol at 25 mg/kg/day
| Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | Patient 4 | Patient 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration of ambroxol, | Trough | Peak | Trough | Peak | Trough | Peak | Trough | Peak | Trough | Peak |
| Serum | 0.99 | 1.75 | 2.00 | 2.96 | 3.17 | 4.24 | 0.41 | 0.70 | 0.51 | 1.32 |
| CSF | 0.14 | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.50 | 0.62 | 0.83 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.15 |
| Penetration rate (peak CSF/serum) (%) | 14.4 | 16.9 | 19.6 | 15.7 | 11.4 | |||||
| GCase activity in lymphocytes, nmol/mg protein/h (% of control) | ||||||||||
| Baseline | Post‐Tx | Baseline | Post‐Tx | Baseline | Post‐Tx | Baseline | Post‐Tx | Baseline | Post‐Tx | |
| 3.2 (13.7) | 10.1 (43.0) | 5.8 (24.7) | 12.5 (53.2) | 7.1 (30.1) | 24.7 (105.0) | 4.3 (18.1) | 14.2 (60.3) | 23.6 | 34.0 (145.0) | |
| Control ( | ||||||||||
| CSF GlcSph levels, pg/mL | Baseline | Post‐Tx | Baseline | Post‐Tx | Baseline | Post‐Tx | Baseline | Post‐Tx | Baseline | Post‐Tx |
| 18.2 | 16.1 | 26.6 | 15.0 | 49.1 | 30.4 | 635 | 533 | 146 | 118 | |
| Control ( | ||||||||||
The effects of treatment were analyzed at the following times: patient 1, month 36; patients 2 and 3, month 12; patient 4, month 24; and patient 5, month 6.
The timing of assessment was month 12.
The CSF trough concentration of ambroxol was calculated from each patient's penetration rate.
The penetration rate of ambroxol was calculated as the peak CSF value/peak serum value × 100 (%).
Enzyme activity after bone marrow transplantation (see text).
Figure 3Effects of ambroxol treatment on myoclonus. The Unified Myoclonus Rating Scale (UMRS) was used to evaluate the response of myoclonus to ambroxol therapy in patients with nGD. We evaluated myoclonus at rest in all patients and myoclonus with action, functional tests, and stimulus sensitivity in testable patients. High scores on UMRS reflect a severe condition.
Figure 4Effects of ambroxol treatment on gross motor function. The graph shows changes in the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) scores after ambroxol treatment for patients 2 and 3, who could be sufficiently examined. The GMFM score of 100% means that the patient's gross motor functions are equivalent to those of a typical 5‐year‐old individual.
Figure 5Effects of ambroxol treatment on functional status. The polar graph shows changes in the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) ratings after ambroxol treatment for each individual item. The background rings represent scores of 1–7 with an inside‐out order. All items were graded on a 1‐ to 7‐point scale (score 1: total assistance, score 7: complete independence) and the expanding rings indicate the FIM rating.
Figure 6Effects of ambroxol on PLR to monochromatic light stimulation in nGD patients. Assessments were performed at the following times posttreatment: patient 1, month 48; patients 2 and 3, month 36; patient 4, month 24; and patient 5, month 6.
Mean pupillometry changes from baseline values
| Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | Patient 4 | Patient 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial constriction rate, % (SD) | |||||
| Baseline | 0 (ND) | 0 (ND) | 13.0 (−5.2 SD) | 11.0 (−7.5 SD) | 38.5 (−0.5 SD) |
| Posttreatment | 21.8 (−0.8 SD) | 18.8 (−4.4 SD) | 31.5 (−1.9 SD) | 24.5 (−4.0 SD) | 36.0 (−0.9 SD) |
| Control (adult) | |||||
| Latency, ms (SD) | |||||
| Baseline | ND | ND | 426.7 (+8.6 SD) | 366.7 (+8.3 SD) | 308.4 (+2.3 SD) |
| Posttreatment | 463.3 (+8.6 SD) | 354.2 (+0.9 SD) | 355.6 (+4.5 SD) | 316.7 (+4.9 SD) | 275.0 (+0.6 SD) |
| Control (adult) | |||||
The effects of treatment were analyzed at the following times: patient 1, month 48; patients 2 and 3, month 36; patient 4, month 24; and patient 5, month 6. The results of controls represent the mean ±SD. ND, not detected.
Data were acquired from 32 healthy controls (n = 30, median age: 23 years; range: 22–37 years).
Data were acquired from 4 healthy controls (n = 4, median age, 3.8 years; range, 3–4 years).
Figure 7Effects of ambroxol on horizontal saccadic eye movements. Data were acquired from two testable patients (patients 2 and 3) and six healthy controls (median age = 22 years; range = 22–34 years). (A) Representation of slowed and stepped saccadic eye movements presenting with large latencies in patients at baseline. (B) Comparison of horizontal saccadic latencies in patients with nGD and normal controls.The results present the mean ± SEM. Statistically significant differences between the control and baseline were elicited, using Mann‐Whitney U‐test. Statistically significant differences between the baseline and month 6 were elicited, using Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. *P < 0.05, ****P < 0.0001.