A randomized placebo controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of minocycline in patients with Angelman syndrome (A-MANECE study)

Belén Ruiz-Antoran, Aranzazu Sancho-López, Rosario Cazorla-Calleja, Luis Fernando López-Pájaro, Ágata Leiva, Gema Iglesias-Escalera, Maria Esperanza Marín-Serrano, Marta Rincón-Ortega, Julián Lara-Herguedas, Teresa Rossignoli-Palomeque, Sara Valiente-Rodríguez, Javier González-Marques, Enriqueta Román-Riechmann, Cristina Avendaño-Solá, Belén Ruiz-Antoran, Aranzazu Sancho-López, Rosario Cazorla-Calleja, Luis Fernando López-Pájaro, Ágata Leiva, Gema Iglesias-Escalera, Maria Esperanza Marín-Serrano, Marta Rincón-Ortega, Julián Lara-Herguedas, Teresa Rossignoli-Palomeque, Sara Valiente-Rodríguez, Javier González-Marques, Enriqueta Román-Riechmann, Cristina Avendaño-Solá

Abstract

Background: Minocycline is an old tetracycline antibiotic that has shown antiinflammatory and antiapoptotic properties in different neurological disease mouse models. Previous single arm study in humans demonstrated benefits in individuals with Angelman Syndrome (AS); however, its efficacy in patients with Angelman Syndrome has not been assessed in a controlled trial. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in individuals with AS, aged 6 years to 30 years (n = 32, mean age 12 [SD 6·29] years). Participants were randomized to minocycline or placebo for 8 weeks and then switched to the other treatment (a subset of 22 patients) or to receive minocycline for up to 16 weeks (10 patients). After week 16, all patients entered a wash-out 8-week follow-up period.

Results: Thirty-six subjects were screened and 34 were randomized. Thirty two subjects (94·1%) completed at least the first period and all of them completed the full trial. Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated the lack of significantly greater improvements in the primary outcome, mean changes in age equivalent of the development index of the Merrill-Palmer Revised Scale after minocycline compared with placebo (1·90 ± 3·16 and 2·00 ± 3·28, respectively, p = 0·937). Longer treatment duration up to 16 weeks did not result in better treatment outcomes (1·86 ± 3·35 for 8 weeks treatment vs 1·20 ± 5·53 for 16 weeks treatment, p = 0·667). Side effects were not significantly different during minocycline and placebo treatments. No serious adverse events occurred on minocycline.

Conclusions: Minocycline treatment for up to 16 weeks in children and young adults with AS resulted in lack of significant improvements in development indexes compared to placebo treatment. Treatment with minocycline appears safe and well tolerated; even if it cannot be completely ruled out that longer trials might be required for a potential minocycline effect to be expressed, available results and lack of knowledge on the actual mechanism of action do not support this hypothesis.

Trial registration: European Clinical Trial database ( EudraCT 2013-002154-67 ), registered 16th September 2013; US Clinical trials database ( NCT02056665 ), registered 6th February 2014.

Keywords: Angelman syndrome; Developmental changes; Minocycline; Pharmacological intervention; Treatment.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at Hospital Puerta de Hierro, by July 22th2018, and by the national regulatory authority (AEMPS). Written informed consent was obtained from guardians after the procedure(s) had been fully explained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Subject’s disposition

References

    1. Magenis RE, Brown MG, Lacy DA, Budden S, LaFranchi S. Is Angelman syndrome an alternate result of del (15) (q11q13)? Am J Med Genet. 1987;28(4):829–838. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320280407.
    1. Margolis SS, Salogiannis J, Lipton DM, Mandel-Brehm C, Wills ZP, Mardinly AR, et al. EphB-mediated degradation of the RhoA GEF Ephexin5 relieves a developmental brake on excitatory synapse formation. Cell. 2010;143(3):442–455. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.09.038.
    1. Wheeler AC, Sacco P, Cabo R. Unmet clinical needs and burden in Angelman syndrome: a review of the literature. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0716-z.
    1. Buckley RH, Dinno N, Weber P. Angelman syndrome: are the estimates too low? Am J Med Genet. 1998;80(4):385–390. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19981204)80:4<385::AID-AJMG15>;2-9.
    1. Petersen MB, Brondum-Nielsen K, Hansen LK, Wulff K. Clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular diagnosis of Angelman syndrome: estimated prevalence rate in a Danish county. Am J Med Genet. United States. 1995;60:261–262. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320600317.
    1. Lossie AC, Whitney MM, Amidon D, Dong HJ, Chen P, Theriaque D, et al. Distinct phenotypes distinguish the molecular classes of Angelman syndrome. J Med Genet. 2001;38(12):834–845. doi: 10.1136/jmg.38.12.834.
    1. Clayton-Smith J, Laan L. Angelman syndrome: a review of the clinical and genetic aspects. J Med Genet. 2003;40(2):87–95. doi: 10.1136/jmg.40.2.87.
    1. Pelc K, Boyd SG, Cheron G, Dan B. Epilepsy in Angelman syndrome. Seizure. 2008;17(3):211–217. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2007.08.004.
    1. Thibert RL, Conant KD, Braun EK, Bruno P, Said RR, Nespeca MP, et al. Epilepsy in Angelman syndrome: a questionnaire-based assessment of the natural history and current treatment options. Epilepsia. 2009;50(11):2369–2376. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02108.x.
    1. Tan W-H, Bird LM. Angelman syndrome:current and emerging therapies in 2016. Am J Med Genet. 2016;172(4):384–401. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31536.
    1. Brundula V, Rewcastle NB, Metz LM, Bernard CC, Yong VW. Targeting leukocyte MMPs and transmigration: minocycline as a potential therapy for multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2002;125(Pt 6):1297–1308. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf133.
    1. Kim H-S, Suh Y-H. Minocycline and neurodegenerative diseases. Behav Brain Res. 2009;196(2):168–179. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.09.040.
    1. Leigh MJS, Nguyen DV, Mu Y, Winarni TI, Schneider A, Chechi T, et al. A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of minocycline in children and adolescents with fragile x syndrome. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2013;34(3):147–155. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318287cd17.
    1. Yong VW, Wells J, Giuliani F, Casha S, Power C, Metz LM. The promise of minocycline in neurology. Lancet Neurol. 2004;3(12):744–751. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(04)00937-8.
    1. Grieco JC, Ciarlone SL, Gieron-Korthals M, Schoenberg MR, Smith AG, Philpot RM, et al. An open-label pilot trial of minocycline in children as a treatment for Angelman syndrome. BMC Neurol. 2014;14:232. doi: 10.1186/s12883-014-0232-x.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel