New pharmacotherapies for the erythropoietic protoporphyrias: an analysis of trial protocols from a patient perspective

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: The erythropoietic protoporphyrias (EPP) are a group of ultra-rare (1:100.000) inborn errors of the heme biosynthesis characterised by painful phototoxic reactions in tissue exposed to visible light. Afamelanotide is the only approved treatment for EPP and effectively prevents phototoxic reactions and improves the quality of life of the patients. In the past years, several new potential treatment options for EPP have been identified, some of which are currently under investigation in clinical trials. While these developments could improve patient care, it is important to know how safety and efficacy of drug candidates compare to the existing treatment, i.e. afamelanotide. Methods: We identified pharmacotherapies (leaving out, for example, topical applications such as sunscreens or supplements such as iron) which are currently (that is, within the last 5 years) evaluated for EPP from clinical trial registries and investigated whether the trial designs allow a comparison of their treatment effects with each other and with afamelanotide. Therefore, we analysed the clinical trial protocols with emphasis on their trial designs, efficacy outcome measures, inclusion and exclusion criteria, safety aspects and, if available, published results. Results: Our search in the clinical trials registries retrieved 29 trials that included patients with EPP. From these, we identified 16 clinical trials evaluating afamelanotide and three new pharmacotherapies, i.e., dersimelagon, bitopertin and cimetidine. Safety and efficacy of all new pharmacotherapies are currently being investigated against placebo-control groups or against baseline. Because of differences in the outcome measures and included patient populations, the results of the trials cannot be directly compared. Moreover, methodically challenging aspects and ethical issues were identified in some of the trial protocols. Conclusion: Efficacy and safety of currently investigated treatments for EPP are not directly comparable. We wrote this manuscript as a call to action to Principal Investigators, Ethical Review Boards, Regulatory Authorities and the sponsors of trials because we are convinced that trials directly assessing new pharmacotherapies against afamelanotide would be the more informative, and methodological and ethically sounder trial design. Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

This publication has 92 references indexed in Scilit: