Key Information
Nuedexta has plausible mechanisms for improving bulbar function in PALS. Some PALS reported concomitant improvement in bulbar function for at least a short period when taking Nuedexta for PBA. A well designed phase II trial in PALS demonstrated the efficacy of Nuedexta in patient-reported bulbar function, and the preliminary result of another trial showed improvement in bulbar physiology. However, its long term effect on bulbar function is unclear, and one open label study showed a lack of benefit in one year. There is no evidence suggesting Nuedexta slows down progression or prolongs survival. Nuedexta causes mild to moderate side effects, but severe side effects directly caused by Nuedexta have not been reported. It should be avoided in patients with a known history of prolonged QT interval. Given all this, we feel there is sufficient evidence to consider Nuedexta treatment for bulbar dysfunction in ALS patients with and without PBA. Financial burden and periodic assessment of its efficacy should be considered for the latter.
Mechanistic plausibility
Mechanistic plausibility
Mechanistic plausibility - C
Mechanistic plausibility
Mechanistic plausibility
Mechanistic plausibility
Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)
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’.
Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)
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’.
Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)
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’.
Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)
Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)
Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient trials
Patient trials
Patient trials
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’.
Patient trials
Patient trials
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
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
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
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