| Literature DB >> 32133457 |
Arpan R Mehta1,2,3,4,5, Rachel Walters2,3,4, Fergal M Waldron6, Suvankar Pal2,3,4, Bhuvaneish T Selvaraj1,2,4, Malcolm R Macleod2,3,4, Giles E Hardingham1,4,7, Siddharthan Chandran1,2,3,4,8,9,10, Jenna M Gregory1,2,3,4,11.
Abstract
Interventions targeting mitochondrial dysfunction have the potential to extend survival in preclinical models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of targeting mitochondria as a potential therapeutic target in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Preclinical studies written in the English language were identified with no restrictions on publication date from PubMed, Medline and EMBASE databases. All studies adopting interventions targeting mitochondria to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in genetic or drug-induced organism models were considered for inclusion. A total of 76 studies were included in the analysis. Survival data were extracted, and the meta-analysis was completed in RevMan 5 software. We show that targeting mitochondrial dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis results in a statistically significant improvement in survival (Z = 5.31; P<0.00001). The timing of administration of the intervention appears to affect the improvement in survival, with the greatest benefit occurring for interventions given prior to disease onset. Interventions at other time points were not significant, although this is likely to be secondary to a lack of publications examining these timepoints. The quality score had no impact on efficacy, and publication bias revealed an overestimation of the effect size, owing to one outlier study; excluding this led to the recalculated effect size changing from 5.31 to 3.31 (P<0.00001). The extant preclinical literature indicates that targeting mitochondrial dysfunction may prolong survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, particularly if the intervention is administered early. A limitation of current research is a significant bias towards models based on superoxide dismutase 1, with uncertainty about generalisability to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with an underlying TAR DNA binding protein 43 proteinopathy. However, further mechanistic research is clearly warranted in this field.Entities:
Keywords: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; meta-analysis; mitochondria; modelling; systematic review
Year: 2019 PMID: 32133457 PMCID: PMC7056361 DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcz009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Commun ISSN: 2632-1297
Figure 4Subgroup analyses reveal no difference in efficacy between divergent pathways, putative target or mode of delivery of intervention. (A) Frequency of studies implementing therapeutic interventions that target the following pathways: AO, anti-oxidative stress; AA, anti-apoptosis; MT, metabolism; AI, anti-inflammation; MD, mitophagy/degradation; ETC, electron transport chain; CB, calcium buffering; EX, excitotoxicity. Each column shows studies demonstrating efficacy in blue and no efficacy in white. Two-way ANOVA shows no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). (B) Frequency of studies implementing interventions that specifically target mitochondria (MT) versus more generic cell-wide distribution (CWD). Each column shows studies demonstrating efficacy in blue and no efficacy in white. Chi2 demonstrates no statistically significant difference (P = 0.14). (C). Frequency of the mode of delivery of study interventions: PO, pharmaceutical oral; PIP, pharmaceutical intraperitoneal; PSC, pharmaceutical subcutaneous; PIV, pharmaceutical intravenous; CTS, cell transplant specific cell type indicated; CTU, cell transplant no specific cell type indicated; PCNS, pharmaceutical directly administered to central nervous system; GA, genetic intervention, all cells targeted; U, unknown/not stated. Each column shows studies demonstrating efficacy in blue and no efficacy in white. Two-way ANOVA shows no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). (D) Post hoc analysis performed to compare pharmaceutical oral (PO) versus all other modes of delivery grouped together. Chi2 demonstrates no statistically significant difference (P = 0.08).
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart indicating numbers of studies at each stage of the review. *Studies were excluded based on the following reasons: (i) due to inappropriate data formatting (i.e. where no useable data could be extracted); (ii) conference poster abstract with insufficient data; or (iii) inappropriately screened (i.e. where the study did not meet inclusion/exclusion criteria). For full dataset, see Supplementary Table 1.
Figure 2Meta-analysis of 76 preclinical studies shows therapeutic potential for targeting mitochondrial pathways in ALS. Forest plot showing the odds ratio and confidence intervals calculated from survival summary data from each study, weighted by study size. Overall effect estimate is demonstrated (with 95% confidence intervals) as a black diamond at the bottom of the graph. Heterogeneity is displayed as an I2 value. Results demonstrate an overall statistically significant effect favouring targeting of mitochondrial pathways in ALS.
Figure 3The majority of studies are conducted at early time points and show that with early interventions there is a statistically significant improvement in survival. Forest plots showing the odds ratio and confidence intervals calculated from survival summary data from each study, weighted by study size. Overall effect estimate is demonstrated (with 95% confidence intervals) as a black diamond at the bottom of the graph. Heterogeneity is displayed as an I2 value. (A) Interventions delivered pre-symptom onset; (B) at symptom onset and (C) after symptom onset. (D) Stacked frequency histogram illustrating the number of studies demonstrating efficacy (blue) as a proportion of the total number of studies (remaining white bar), divided into categories depending on timing of administered intervention. Results demonstrate an overall statistically significant effect favouring the targeting of mitochondrial pathways early in ALS (A); however, there is no difference in likelihood of demonstrating efficacy depending on timing of intervention (D), implying that there are too few studies conducted at later time points (two-way ANOVA, P > 0.05).
Figure 5Publication bias results in overestimation of effect size. (A) Funnel plot showing each point as a study, plotted against the effect size of that study (abscissa) and precision of that study (SE(log[OR]); ordinate). One study outlier was identified (highlighted by a blue square), skewing the effect size significantly, resulting in an overestimation of the effect size. (B) Adjusted funnel plot demonstrating recalculated effect size estimate of 3.31, cf. 5.31.(C) Frequency distribution illustrating that the structured quality score is not significant in determining intervention efficacy (two-way ANOVA, P > 0.05).