Premium
Tauroursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Author(s) -
Elia A. E.,
Lalli S.,
Monsurrò M. R.,
Sagnelli A.,
Taiello A. C.,
Reggiori B.,
La Bella V.,
Tedeschi G.,
Albanese A.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
european journal of neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.881
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1468-1331
pISSN - 1351-5101
DOI - 10.1111/ene.12664
Subject(s) - tauroursodeoxycholic acid , medicine , tolerability , placebo , amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , riluzole , adverse effect , gastroenterology , disease , pathology , biochemistry , chemistry , alternative medicine , endoplasmic reticulum , unfolded protein response
Background and purpose Tauroursodeoxycholic acid ( TUDCA ) is a hydrophilic bile acid that is produced in the liver and used for treatment of chronic cholestatic liver diseases. Experimental studies suggest that TUDCA may have cytoprotective and anti‐apoptotic action, with potential neuroprotective activity. A proof of principle approach was adopted to provide preliminary data regarding the efficacy and tolerability of TUDCA in a series of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ( ALS ). Methods As a proof of principle, using a double‐blind placebo controlled design, 34 ALS patients under treatment with riluzole who were randomized to placebo or TUDCA (1 g twice daily for 54 weeks) were evaluated after a lead‐in period of 3 months. The patients were examined every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of responders [those subjects with improvement of at least 15% in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised ( ALSFRS ‐R) slope during the treatment period compared to the lead‐in phase]. Secondary outcomes included between‐treatment comparison of ALSFRS ‐R at study end, comparison of the linear regression slopes for ALSFFRS ‐R mean scores and the occurrence of adverse events. Results Tauroursodeoxycholic acid was well tolerated; there were no between‐group differences for adverse events. The proportion of responders was higher under TUDCA (87%) than under placebo ( P = 0.021; 43%). At study end baseline‐adjusted ALSFRS ‐R was significantly higher ( P = 0.007) in TUDCA than in placebo groups. Comparison of the slopes of regression analysis showed slower progression in the TUDCA than in the placebo group ( P < 0.01). Conclusions This pilot study provides preliminary clinical data indicating that TUDCA is safe and may be effective in ALS .