Trial reportJournal of neurology2025
Challenges in multinational rare disease clinical studies during COVID-19: regulatory assessment of cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat in adults with late-onset Pompe disease.
Trial report in Journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03729362 (A Phase 3 Double-blind Randomized Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous ATB200 Co-administered With Oral AT2221 in Adult Subjects With Late-onset Pompe Disease Compared With Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase 3 Double-blind Randomized Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous ATB200 Co-administered With Oral AT2221 in Adult Subjects With Late-onset Pompe Disease Compared With Alglucosidase Alfa/Placebo
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PROPEL (ATB200-03; NCT03729362) compared the efficacy and safety of cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat (cipa + mig), a two-component therapy for late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD), versus alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (alg + pbo). The primary endpoint was change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) from baseline to week 52. During PROPEL, COVID-19 interrupted some planned study visits and assessment windows, leading to delayed visits, make-up assessments for patients who missed ≥ 3 successive infusions before planned assessments at weeks 38 and 52, and some advanced visits (end-of-study/early-termination visits). These were remapped to the respective planned visits. To evaluate if remapping may have overestimated treatment effects, we conducted post hoc analyses using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures based on actual time points of assessments. In this post hoc analysis, estimated mean treatment difference between cipa + mig and alg + pbo for change from baseline to week 52 in 6MWD was 11.7 m (95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.0 to 24.4; p = 0.072). In the original published analyses, between-group difference using last observation carried forward was 13.6 m (95% CI - 2.8 to 29.9; p = 0.071 [p value from separate non-parametric analysis of covariance]). Both statistical analysis approaches led to similar results and consistent conclusions, confirming the efficacy of cipa + mig for adults with LOPD. NCT03729362; trial start date: December 4, 2018.Trial registration number.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.