Background:Telemedicine (TM) contributes to bridge the gap between healthcare facilities and patients’ homes with neuromuscular disease (NMD) because of mobility issues. However, its deployment is... Show moreBackground:Telemedicine (TM) contributes to bridge the gap between healthcare facilities and patients’ homes with neuromuscular disease (NMD) because of mobility issues. However, its deployment is limited due to difficulties evaluating subtle neurological signs such as mild weakness or sensory deficits. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare delivery worldwide, necessitating rapid measures implementation by health care providers (HCPs) to protect patients from acquiring SARS-CoV-2 while maintaining the best care and treatment.Objectives:Given the challenges faced by remote healthcare assistance of NMD patients, we aim to evaluate the use of TM in NMD during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods:Based on the Model for Assessment-of-Telemedicine-Applications (MAST), we conducted a survey amongst clinicians of the ERN EURO NMD (European-Reference-Network-for-Rare-Neuromuscular-Diseases).Results:Based on 42 responses over 76 expected ones, our results show that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased the number of HCPs using TM (from 60% to 100%). The TM types most used during the COVID-19 period are teleconsultation and consultation by phone, particularly in the context of symptoms worsening in NMD patients with COVID-19 infection. Most European HCPs were satisfied when using TM but as a complementary option to physical consultations. Many responses addressed the issue of technical aspects needing improvement, particularly for elderly patients who need caregivers’ assistance for accessing the TM platform.Conclusions:TM has been essential during COVID-19, but its use still presents some limitations for NMD patients with cognitive deficits or for first-time diagnosis. Thus, TM should be used as complement to, rather than substitute, for face-to-face consultations. Show less
ObjectiveTo assess long-term (2 years) effects of bimagrumab in participants with sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM).MethodsParticipants (aged 36-85 years) who completed the core study ... Show moreObjectiveTo assess long-term (2 years) effects of bimagrumab in participants with sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM).MethodsParticipants (aged 36-85 years) who completed the core study (RESILIENT [Efficacy and Safety of Bimagrumab/BYM338 at 52 Weeks on Physical Function, Muscle Strength, Mobility in sIBM Patients]) were invited to join an extension study. Individuals continued on the same treatment as in the core study (10 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg bimagrumab or matching placebo administered as IV infusions every 4 weeks). The co-primary outcome measures were 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and safety.ResultsBetween November 2015 and February 2017, 211 participants entered double-blind placebo-controlled period of the extension study. Mean change in 6MWD from baseline was highly variable across treatment groups, but indicated progressive deterioration from weeks 24-104 in all treatment groups. Overall, 91.0% (n = 142) of participants in the pooled bimagrumab group and 89.1% (n = 49) in the placebo group had >= 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (AE). Falls were slightly higher in the bimagrumab 3 mg/kg group vs 10 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, and placebo groups (69.2% [n = 36 of 52] vs 56.6% [n = 30 of 53], 58.8% [n = 30 of 51], and 61.8% [ n = 34 of 55], respectively). The most frequently reported AEs in the pooled bimagrumab group were diarrhea 14.7% (n = 23), involuntary muscle contractions 9.6% (n = 15), and rash 5.1% (n = 8). Incidence of serious AEs was comparable between the pooled bimagrumab and the placebo group (18.6% [n = 29] vs 14.5% [n = 8], respectively).ConclusionExtended treatment with bimagrumab up to 2 years produced a good safety profile and was well-tolerated, but did not provide clinical benefits in terms of improvement in mobility. The extension study was terminated early due to core study not meeting its primary endpoint.Classification of EvidenceThis study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with sIBM, long-term treatment with bimagrumab was safe, welltolerated, and did not provide meaningful functional benefit. The study is rated Class IV because of the open-label design of extension treatment period 2. Show less
Hanna, M.G.; Badrising, U.A.; Benveniste, O.; Lloyd, T.E.; Needham, M.; Chinoy, H.; ... ; RESILIENT Study Grp 2019
