Updated May 1, 2023
We found a new randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in which 23 patients were treated with Inosine at doses which raised serum urate to 7-8mg/dLfor 24 weeks (Muscle & Nerve 2023;67:378-386). No clinical benefits were detected. Kidney stones occurred in 14% of those treated with Inosine had kidney stones. Based on this, we change our trials grade from D to F. We do not recommend Inosine as a way to slow ALS progression.
Updated January 3, 2022
Since our review, the results of a 12-week open-label trial of inosine in people with ALS were published (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6292193/). This study showed excellent safety and tolerability, and it showed encouraging reductions in biomarkers of oxidative stress and damage. When ALSFRS-R progression was compared to predicted progression, no significant slowing was observed. However, this study was likely underpowered, and 12-weeks is a short duration in which to assess changes on this measure. Based on these results, we upgrade our Mechanisms grade to A. No other grade changes appear warranted. We continue to support further trials of inosine in people with ALS.
Key Information
Click on any letter grade below for more info:
Preclinical Trials Grade:
U
Published: Aug 2016
Inosine is a low-cost supplement that increases the levels of urate, a naturally occurring antioxidant. With appropriate blood and urine monitoring, it appears reasonably safe. Epidemiologic data suggest that high urate levels may be associated with improved survival in ALS, which prompted preclinical studies and clinical trials of inosine. These are still ongoing and will help determine whether inosine could be a useful treatment for ALS.
Declaration of interest: ALSUntangled is sponsored by the ALS Association and the Motor Neurone Disease Association.
Click here to download the complete review.
Grade A: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in humans
Grade B: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in pre-clinical model(s)
Grade C: Theoretically and plausibly acts on an ALS-relevant mechanism in humans
Grade D: Acts on a biological mechanism but it is not clear that this mechanism is relevant in ALS
Grade F: Implausible; would violate known principles or laws of biology
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: Two or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in well-designed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade B: One peer-reviewed publication reporting benefits in a well-designed study.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publication(s) reporting benefits in flawed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade D: One or more non-peer reviewed studies reporting benefits (published on a website or in an abstract)
Grade F: The only studies available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade B: More than one unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade C: One unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade D: Subjective report(s) of benefit without validated diagnoses and/or benefits
Grade F: The only reports available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Two or more peer-reviewed publications describing benefits in well-designed randomized, blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a well-designed randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled phase I or II trial
Grade D: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a flawed trial.
Flawed trials means those in which there are identifiable problems with patient selection, randomization, blinding, controls or follow-up. These have ‘high or unclear risk of bias’ according to published criteria. Well-designed trials are those that have ‘low risk of bias’.
Grade F: The only trials available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: No exposed patients appear to have experienced harms
Grade B: More than 0% but less than 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade B (oral): More than 0% but less than10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D (intravenous): More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade C: At least 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Listen to the Podcast
Listen on Spreaker
