Section Terms and abbreviations 1 Executive summary 2 Product information and disease description 3 Clinical evidence 4 Economic information and modeling report 5 References Clinical evidence
3.1.1 DRAGON24 evidence topics · 11 sources
3.1.1.2 Location and study date
Original UK protocol: ethics opinion Completion of the final study visit
DRAGON pivotal phase 3 trial: trial design “Completed, 24-month, 104 subjects, aged 12 to 20 years old, randomized (2:1, active: placebo), double-masked, placebo-controlled, global, multi-center, pivotal Phase 3 trial” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab) Copy Flag
3.1.1.4 Eligibility criteria
DRAGON pivotal phase 3 trial: enrollment criteria
DRAGON pivotal phase 3 trial: treatment groups
3.1.1.6.1 Rationale for using DDAF lesion growth as the primary endpoint
Primary endpoint and reported regulatory agreement Planned patient-reported assessments Visual-acuity endpoint: natural-history rate of change 3.1.1.7 Statistical analysis description
3.1.1.7.1 Number of participants (Planned and analyzed)
Original UK protocol: planned enrollment DRAGON: randomized and analyzed populations 3.1.1.7.2 Description of analysis sets
Modified full analysis set: baseline and post-baseline requirements Primary statistical model
3.1.1.8.1 Participant disposition
DRAGON pivotal phase 3 trial: treatment-related discontinuations Interim participant disposition 3.1.1.8.2 Baseline characteristics
3.1.1.8.3 Efficacy results
DRAGON: primary-endpoint results DRAGON pivotal phase 3 trial: visual acuity DRAGON quantitative autofluorescence secondary endpoint: tinlarebant DRAGON quantitative autofluorescence secondary endpoint: placebo 3.1.1.8.4 Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomesNo evidence found.
DRAGON pivotal phase 3 trial: adverse events DRAGON pivotal phase 3 trial: serious non-ocular treatment-emergent adverse events Non-ocular adverse events: safety population Ocular adverse events: safety population
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.