Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundMOXIe was a two-part study evaluating the safety and efficacy of omaveloxolone in patients with Friedreich's ataxia, a rare, progressive neurological disease with no proven therapy. MOXIe part 2, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, showed omaveloxolone significantly improved modified Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale (mFARS) scores relative to placebo. Patients who completed part 1 or 2 were eligible to receive omaveloxolone in an open-label extension study.ObjectiveThe delayed-start study compared mFARS scores at the end of MOXIe part 2 with those at 72 weeks in the open-label extension period (up to 144 weeks) for patients initially randomized to omaveloxolone versus those initially randomized to placebo.MethodsWe performed a noninferiority test to compare the difference between treatment groups (placebo to omaveloxolone versus omaveloxolone to omaveloxolone) using a single mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. In addition, slopes of the change in mFARS scores were compared between both groups in the open-label extension.ResultsThe noninferiority testing demonstrated that the difference in mFARS between omaveloxolone and placebo observed at the end of placebo-controlled MOXIe part 2 (-2.17 ± 1.09 points) was preserved after 72 weeks in the extension (-2.91 ± 1.44 points). In addition, patients previously randomized to omaveloxolone in MOXIe part 2 continued to show no worsening in mFARS relative to their extension baseline through 144 weeks.ConclusionsThese results support the positive results of MOXIe part 2 and indicate a persistent benefit of omaveloxolone treatment on disease course in Friedreich's ataxia. © 2022 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.