Evicenter
P&T meetings

Deramiocel (CAP-1002)

Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Launch
Not announced
Last updated
92 sources

Clinical evidence

HOPE-2

27 evidence topics · 12 sources

Objective
Location and study date
Study period reported in the publication
MilestoneReported date
Beginning of reported study period“March 1, 2018”
End of reported study period“March 31, 2020”
Study design
Eligibility criteria
Treatment
Study outcomes
Rationale for using performance of the upper limb 1.2 mid-level elbow score as the primary endpoint
Statistical analysis description
Number of participants (Planned and analyzed)
Original target and FDA efficacy analysis population
PopulationParticipants
Original planned enrollment“84”
FDA repeated-measures primary analysis“19”
Actual randomized allocation
PopulationParticipants
Randomized“20”
CAP-1002“8”
Placebo“12”
Description of analysis sets
Results
Participant disposition
Screening and 12-month disposition
DispositionParticipants
Screened“26”
Screen failures“6”
CAP-1002 completers“7”
Placebo completers“9”
Baseline characteristics
Age and ambulation at baseline
CharacteristicCAP-1002, 8 participantsPlacebo, 12 participants
Age in years, mean and standard deviation“14 (3·2)”“14 (2·9)”
Non-ambulatory, number and percentage“7 (88%)”“11 (92%)”
Efficacy results
Confidence interval for the percentile difference in the full-text results
FDA analysis of the primary endpoint on the original scale
MeasureReported result
Between-group difference in change at month 12“2.98”
95% confidence interval“-0.95 – 6.91”
Nominal p value“0.13”
Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes

No evidence found.

Safety results
Published infusion-related hypersensitivity findings
FindingReported participants
Infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions“three patients”
Treatment discontinuation because of a severe allergic reaction“one patient”
Study limitations
Summary

HOPE-2 enrolled 20 participants rather than the original target of 84; an amended protocol limited enrollment to 20. Allocation was 8 to CAP-1002 and 12 to placebo, and the FDA primary efficacy analysis included 19 participants. The publication reported a significant percentile-rank result, whereas FDA’s original-scale analysis had a confidence interval crossing zero and a nominal p value of 0.13. FDA identified changes to the statistical plan after unblinding. The SAP described subsequent efficacy p values as nominal. The abstract and full-text results report different confidence intervals for the percentile difference. The small sample, incomplete follow-up, and disagreement between analyses limit precision and confidence in the treatment-effect estimate.