Predefined subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint in IB1001-303
“For the primary and each secondary endpoint, there were separate evaluations within key subgroups predefined in the statistical analysis plan (the trial was not powered for conclusions in these subgroups).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Figure 3B displays results for the primary SARA endpoint in the predefined subgroups showing 95% CIs. There is no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect across subgroups that would suggest a differential treatment effect across the population. Instead, across all subgroups, there were consistent improvements with levacetylleucine versus placebo.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Subgroup analysis showed consistent benefit across all demographics of patients, irrespective of age (paediatric vs adult), age at disease onset, or gender.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Subgroup analyses showed that the improvement in neurological status was observed across all demographics of patients (age of neurological disease onset, disease severity, and gender, etc), indicating that the treatment might be applicable for all patients with ataxia-telangiectasia.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
Size of the age, age-at-diagnosis, and dose subgroups in IB1001-303
Randomization without stratification by age
Company statements on subgroup consistency
Classic versus variant ataxia-telangiectasia
No evidence found.
Pediatric, low body weight, and geriatric populations in the label
Race and ethnicity of the trial population