• Renske I Wadman, W Ludo van der Pol, Wendy Mj Bosboom, Fay-Lynn Asselman, Leonard H van den Berg, Susan T Iannaccone, and Alexander Fje Vrancken.
• University Medical Center Utrecht, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3584 CX.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 11; 12: CD006281.

BackgroundSpinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. By definition, children with SMA type I are never able to sit without support and usually die or become ventilator dependent before the age of two years. There have until very recently been no drug treatments to influence the course of SMA. We undertook this updated review to evaluate new evidence on emerging treatments for SMA type I. The review was first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of any drug therapy designed to slow or arrest progression of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type I.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. We also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials (October 2018).Selection CriteriaWe sought all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA type I. Included participants had to fulfil clinical criteria and have a genetically confirmed deletion or mutation of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2). The primary outcome measure was age at death or full-time ventilation. Secondary outcome measures were acquisition of motor milestones, i.e. head control, rolling, sitting or standing, motor milestone response on disability scores within one year after the onset of treatment, and adverse events and serious adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1 gene replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review.Data Collection And AnalysisWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.Main ResultsWe identified two RCTs: one trial of intrathecal nusinersen in comparison to a sham (control) procedure in 121 randomised infants with SMA type I, which was newly included at this update, and one small trial comparing riluzole treatment to placebo in 10 children with SMA type I. The RCT of intrathecally-injected nusinersen was stopped early for efficacy (based on a predefined Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination-Section 2 (HINE-2) response). At the interim analyses after 183 days of treatment, 41% (21/51) of nusinersen-treated infants showed a predefined improvement on HINE-2, compared to 0% (0/27) of participants in the control group. This trial was largely at low risk of bias. Final analyses (ranging from 6 months to 13 months of treatment), showed that fewer participants died or required full-time ventilation (defined as more than 16 hours daily for 21 days or more) in the nusinersen-treated group than the control group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.89; N = 121; a 47% lower risk; moderate-certainty evidence). A proportion of infants in the nusinersen group and none of 37 infants in the control group achieved motor milestones: 37/73 nusinersen-treated infants (51%) achieved a motor milestone response on HINE-2 (risk ratio (RR) 38.51, 95% CI 2.43 to 610.14; N = 110; moderate-certainty evidence); 16/73 achieved head control (RR 16.95, 95% CI 1.04 to 274.84; moderate-certainty evidence); 6/73 achieved independent sitting (RR 6.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 115.38; moderate-certainty evidence); 7/73 achieved rolling over (RR 7.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 131.29); and 1/73 achieved standing (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.92; moderate-certainty evidence). Seventy-one per cent of nusinersen-treated infants versus 3% of infants in the control group were responders on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) measure of motor disability (RR 26.36, 95% CI 3.79 to 183.18; N = 110; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in the majority of infants but were no more frequent in the nusinersen-treated group than the control group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05 and RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89, respectively; N = 121; moderate-certainty evidence). In the riluzole trial, three of seven children treated with riluzole were still alive at the ages of 30, 48, and 64 months, whereas all three children in the placebo group died. None of the children in the riluzole or placebo group developed the ability to sit, which was the only milestone reported. There were no adverse effects. The certainty of the evidence for all measured outcomes from this study was very low, because the study was too small to detect or rule out an effect, and had serious limitations, including baseline differences. This trial was stopped prematurely because the pharmaceutical company withdrew funding. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen, such as SMN2 augmentation by small molecules, are ongoing.Authors' ConclusionsBased on the very limited evidence currently available regarding drug treatments for SMA type 1, intrathecal nusinersen probably prolongs ventilation-free and overall survival in infants with SMA type I. It is also probable that a greater proportion of infants treated with nusinersen than with a sham procedure achieve motor milestones and can be classed as responders to treatment on clinical assessments (HINE-2 and CHOP INTEND). The proportion of children experiencing adverse events and serious adverse events on nusinersen is no higher with nusinersen treatment than with a sham procedure, based on evidence of moderate certainty. It is uncertain whether riluzole has any effect in patients with SMA type I, based on the limited available evidence. Future trials could provide more high-certainty, longer-term evidence to confirm this result, or focus on comparing new treatments to nusinersen or evaluate them as an add-on therapy to nusinersen.Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10 keywords...

hide…