Kissel 2014.
Methods | Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled cross‐over trial | |
Participants | 33 ambulatory adults with SMA type III Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
|
|
Interventions | Oral valproic acid 10–20 mg/kg/day (doses adequate to reach serum levels 50–100 mg/dL) divided over 2–3 doses or placebo orally Cross‐over of treatment after 6 months for a consecutive period of 6 months |
|
Outcomes | Change in maximum voluntary isometric contraction testing for separate muscles (bilateral elbow flexors, elbow extensors, knee flexors, knee extensors and grip) and total muscle score, change in muscle strength measured by hand‐held dynamometer of elbow flexors/extensors and knee flexors/extensor, change in SMAFRS, change in CMAP of ulnar nerve, change in mRNA levels, change in SMN protein levels, change in pulmonary function (FVC, FEV1, MIP), change in muscle mass measured by DEXA, change in endurance assessed through 6‐minute walk test, change in function assessed in time to climb 4 standard stairs, change in mini‐SIP, adverse events | |
Funding | Quote: "Funded by Families of Spinal Muscular Atrophy and also by grants from the Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences, University of Utah (UL1RR025764), and the Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences, Ohio State University (UL1RR025755)." Abbott Pharmaceuticals provided valproic acid and placebo |
|
Conflicts of interest | Authors reported receipt of grants and funding from Families of SMA and other non‐governmental, charitable, governmental, academic and pharmaceutical company sources. 2 authors report receipt of drugs from Abbott Pharmaceuticals for clinical trials in SMA. | |
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Randomly assigned. Unknown method. Since the trial was part of the previous Carni‐VAL‐I trial and most procedures were the same, one could suppose there was central randomisation by telephone; however, this was not exactly stated in the article or supplementary material. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Randomly assigned. Unknown method. Since the trial was part of the previous Carni‐VAL‐I trial and most procedures were the same, one could suppose there was central randomisation by telephone; however, this was not exactly stated in the article or supplementary material. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Participants, physicians and investigators were blinded. 1 investigator was not blinded. Study compliance (tablet counts and valproic acid levels) were checked by unblinded investigator. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Participants, physicians and investigators were blinded. 1 investigator was not blinded. Study compliance (tablet counts and valproic acid levels) were checked by unblinded investigator. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | 4 participants withdrew, but were included in ITT analysis. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Incomplete data reported in article, but data available on request. |
Other bias | High risk | Potential bias by design: cross‐over design implies risk of carryover effect. No report on a washout period between the 2 treatment periods. |