Evicenter
P&T meetings

Tinlarebant (LBS-008)

Stargardt disease type 1

Manufacturer
Belite Bio
Regulatory submission
NDA submitted June 2026
Last updated
66 sources

Clinical evidence

DRAGON

24 evidence topics · 11 sources

Objective
Location and study date
Original UK protocol: ethics opinion
FieldQuoted record
Ethics opinion date“25 Nov 2021”
Ethics committee“Wales REC 5”
Study design
Eligibility criteria
Treatment
DRAGON pivotal phase 3 trial: treatment groups
Study outcomes
Rationale for using DDAF lesion growth as the primary endpoint
Statistical analysis description
Number of participants (Planned and analyzed)
Original UK protocol: planned enrollment
PopulationPlanned participants
Global“60”
United Kingdom“6”
DRAGON: randomized and analyzed populations
PopulationQuoted record
Safety set“N = 104”
Modified full analysis set“N = 96”
Description of analysis sets
Results
Participant disposition
Baseline characteristics
Efficacy results
Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes

No evidence found.

Safety results
Non-ocular adverse events: safety population
CategoryTinlarebant 5 mg, 69 participantsPlacebo, 35 participants
Any non-ocular TEAE“59 (85.5%)”“27 (77.1%)”
Serious non-ocular TEAE“2 (2.9%)”“4 (11.4%)”
Drug-related non-ocular TEAE“14 (20.3%)”“4 (11.4%)”
Non-ocular TEAE resulting in study-drug discontinuation“0 (0.0%)”“0 (0.0%)”
Ocular adverse events: safety population
CategoryTinlarebant 5 mg, 69 participantsPlacebo, 35 participants
Any ocular TEAE“53 (76.8%)”“8 (22.9%)”
Drug-related ocular TEAE“49 (71.0%)”“8 (22.9%)”
Serious ocular TEAE“0 (0.0%)”“0 (0.0%)”
Ocular TEAE resulting in study-drug discontinuation“4 (5.8%)”“0 (0.0%)”
Ocular TEAE resulting in study discontinuation“2 (2.9%)”“0 (0.0%)”
Study limitations
Summary

DRAGON enrolled 104 participants aged 12–20 years with defined atrophic lesions and visual acuity of 20/200 or better. Its modified full analysis set included 96 participants, rather than all randomized participants. The primary outcome was anatomical lesion growth; minimal visual-acuity change in both groups limits conclusions about functional benefit during the 24-month treatment period. These eligibility restrictions also limit direct applicability to younger children and participants outside the studied lesion-size and visual-acuity ranges.