Skip to main content
Download PDF

Real-world multidisciplinary outcomes of onasemnogene abeparvovec monotherapy in patients with spinal muscular atrophy type 1: experience of the French cohort in the first three years of treatment

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases volume 19, Article number: 344 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1) is the most severe and early form of SMA, a genetic disease with motor neuron degeneration. Onasemnogene abeparvovec gene transfer therapy (GT) has changed the natural history of SMA1, but real-world data are scarce.

Methods

A French national expert committee identified 95 newly diagnosed treatment-naive SMA1 patients between June 2019 and June 2022. We prospectively report on children treated with GT as the first and only therapy who had more than one-year of follow-up.

Results

Forty-six SMA1 patients received GT. Twelve patients received other treatments. Patients with respiratory insufficiency were oriented toward palliative care after discussion with families. Twenty-nine of the treated patients with more than 12 months of follow-up were included in the follow-up analysis. Among them, 17 had 24 months of follow-up. The mean age at treatment was 7.5 (2.1–12.5) months. Twenty-two patients had two SMN2 copies, and seven had three copies. One infant died in the month following GT due to severe thrombotic microangiopathy, and another died due to respiratory distress. Among the 17 patients with 24 months of follow-up, 90% required spinal bracing (15/17), three patients required nocturnal noninvasive ventilation, and two needed gastrostomy. Concerning motor milestones at the 24-month follow-up, all patients held their head, 15/17 sat for 30 s unassisted, and 12/17 stood with aid. Motor scores (CHOPINTEND and HINE-2) and thoracic circumference significantly improved in all patients.

Conclusions

Our study shows favorable motor outcomes and preserved respiratory and feeding functions in treatment-naive SMA1 infants treated by GT as the first and only therapy before respiratory and bulbar dysfunctions occurred. Nevertheless, almost all patients developed spinal deformities.

Introduction

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is an autosomal, recessive, neuromuscular disease with an incidence of approximately 1:10,000 live births [1]. SMA is characterized by progressive motor neuron degeneration leading to proximal muscle weakness and atrophy.

Without disease-modifying treatments, SMA phenotypes are divided into five types according to the age of onset and maximal motor acquisition, from type 0 (symptoms at birth) to type 4 (adult onset). In SMA type 1 (SMA1), symptoms occur in the first 6 months of life, and three subtypes are distinguished (1a, 1b and 1c). In SMA types 1a and 1b, head control is never achieved and signs appear within 4 weeks of life (1a) or within the first 3 months (1b). In SMA type 1c patients, head support is achieved for a while and the onset of symptoms occurs between 3 and 6 months [2, 3]. SMA1 is rapidly progressive, and in the absence of continuous vital support, infants die within the first 2 years of life of respiratory insufficiency [4]. SMA severity is modulated by the number of copies of SMN2, a second “protector” gene [5], and SMA1 infants often have two SMN2 copies and may even have three.

Recently, new therapies have changed the prognosis of SMA patients. Three treatments have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Nusinersen: Spinraza® and risdiplam: Évrysdi® (SMN2 pre-mRNA splicing modifiers) were proposed in France with an early access program, respectively in 2017 and 2020. Onasemnogene abeparvovec, commercialized as Zolgensma® [a gene replacement therapy that offsets the defective SMN1 gene with a therapeutic functional SMN1 copy delivered by adeno-associated virus 9 (AVV9)] was approved in France in April 2019.

Recent papers (from open-label, phase I and III trials and from real-world experience) compiled in Blair 2022 showed that onasemnogene abeparvovec prolonged event-free survival and improved motor function and motor milestone achievements [6]. Nevertheless, regarding the efficacy and medium- to long-term motor outcomes of these treatments, few real-world data have been published [7,8,9,10,11,12]. The main drawbacks of the existing studies are the small numbers of reported subjects [10, 11], the multiplicity of treatments [12], and the heterogeneity of the population analyzed with regard to age, SMA type and SMN2 copy number [7]. Furthermore, although clinical score improvement after GT is important, patient-oriented outcomes such as motor milestone achievements and the need for ventilation or nutritional support should also be emphasized [7].

Onasemnogene abeparvovec is generally well-tolerated, although transitory liver enzyme increases or thrombocytopenia have been documented [8, 13,14,15]. Moreover, severe adverse events such as hepatitis and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) have been described during the first 2 weeks after infusion [16,17,18,19]. Rare deaths have been reported to be induced by TMA or hepatocellular failure [16, 20, 21]. One case of epithelioid neoplasm of the spinal cord after GT was also recently reported [22].

Since 2011, the French neuromuscular network, FILNEMUS (from French: FILières des maladies NEuroMUSculaires), has included 23 reference centers (htpp://filnemus.fr). Treatment indications in France are currently restricted to SMA1 and SMA2 children under 2 years old and weighing less than 12 kg [23]. As the clinical benefits of treatment in severely ill infants with bulbar impairment and/or respiratory insufficiency are unclear given the absence of data, the FILNEMUS national expert committee restricts GT for SMA1 infants to those without significant respiratory or bulbar impairment.

We report original real-world data and major adverse events from naive SMA1 patients treated by onasemnogene abeparvovec as a monotherapy in France between June 2019 and June 2022, all with 12 to 24 months of follow-up.

Methods

Patients

Between June 2019 and June 2022, all consecutive SMA1 patients diagnosed in one of the 23 French pediatric reference centers for neuromuscular disorders (with genetically confirmed diagnosis of homozygous SMN1 exon 7 deletions and the number of SMN2 copies) were identified by the FILNEMUS national expert committee through bimonthly virtual meetings (or ad hoc urgent supplementary meetings). This national commission was established in France in 2017 at the request of the reference center clinicians to ensure a group of expert clinicians able to define the indications for innovative SMA therapies in real life. Concerning onasemnogene abeparovec (GT), the commission’s validation of an indication is mandatory in France to obtain the drug, which can be administered only in expert centers authorized by the health authorities for gene transfer therapy prescription and delivery.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

The various therapeutic options (nusinersen since 2017, onasemnogene abeparvovec since 2019, and risdiplam since 2020) were discussed for each patient by the expert committee.

All patients treated by GT as the first and only line with more than 12 months follow-up after treatment were included in this study. Inclusion criteria were:

  • genetically confirmed diagnosis of SMA

  • clinical phenotype of SMA type 1

  • more than 12 months follow-up at the end of the study period.

Exclusion criteria were:

  • clinical phenotype of SMA other than type 1

  • severe respiratory impairment or bulbar signs (i.e., need for ventilatory support or continuous enteral feeding; a TC/HC ratio < 0.85) or a profound motor deficit (evaluated by HINE-2, CHOPINTEND and clinical examination). In this case, palliative care was recommended.

  • recent vaccination, logistic difficulties, or a positive PCR result for a respiratory virus (COVID, SRV, etc.). In the latter case, nusinersen or risdiplam was proposed as the first-line treatment until the viral PCR was negativized, allowing the patient to switch to GT as a second line.

  • less than 12 months follow-up after treatment at the end of the study period.

The parents were informed of the different treatment possibilities and the need for the expert committee’s approval. The final decision of the committee was made with the child’s best interests in mind, most often with the parents’ full agreement [24].

GT infusion procedure

After confirming AAV9 antibody negativity, the onasemnogene abeparvovec was administered in the intensive care unit of one of the accredited French hospitals (currently 14) through a central venous catheter after thorough clinical and biological evaluation: viral investigations (nasal PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and multiplex viral PCR) and respiratory and cardiac evaluations (ECG and echocardiography). Patients stayed at the hospital at least 3 days after the infusion and for up to a week.

Before summer 2021, prednisolone (1 mg/kg/day) was administered for 1 month (increased if required in the case of hypertransaminemia or thrombocytopenia) and was slowly and carefully decreased over 1 month or more as transaminase and thrombocytosis levels normalized. After the fatal outcome in a child due to TMA in January 2021, a reinforced protocol with an increased initial dose (2 mg/kg/day) was proposed and variably maintained during the first 2 weeks, depending on blood test results and clinical course, then reduced to 1 mg/kg/day for 1 month, and slowly tapered in the following weeks, depending on blood results and clinical course.

Vaccinations, including palivizumab, were given in accordance with the French vaccine program to prevent severe SRV infections during the first two winters.

Data collection and analyses

This prospective study is registered under approval statement number MR004: 2206723 v 0. Genetic results (SMN1 deletion and SMN2 copy number), age at onset and subtype of SMA (type 1a, 1b, 1c or presymptomatic) were collected at baseline. Given that the included patients were treatment-naive and already in the motor regression phase of the disease at diagnosis, the types of SMA (age at symptom onset and highest developmental keystone reached) were applicable for their initial description, as no motor milestone achievement was expected in the natural course of the disease without treatment.

Developmental milestones (head support, unaided sitting and standing a few seconds with aid), need for respiratory or feeding support (NIV, gastrostomy), spinal deformity and need for a spinal brace, motor function scores (HINE-2 and CHOPINTEND) and TC/HC ratio (a simple measure reflecting pulmonary growth associated with mortality in SMA natural history [25, 26]) were collected at baseline and 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months (M) after GT. Unaided sitting was defined as the ability to sit for 30 s without aid. In this study, NIV patients refers to patients with NIV during sleeping times. No patient required NIV for longer periods. All patients who needed nutritional support underwent gastrostomy. No patient had a gastric tube or modified diet. In the study, nutritional support refers to gastrostomy.

Classical biological assessments to monitor tolerance of GT (liver enzymes, liver function, complete blood count) were regularly performed in accordance with the recommendations. Only severe adverse events are reported here.

Statistical analysis

All the statistical analyses were performed with Excel and R software (version 4.0.2). Means were compared using Student’s t test (Excel T.TEST function). The p values are presented for descriptive purposes only. A p value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

The onasemnogene abeparvovec treatment procedure and follow-up were systematically reported to the French SMA Registry (R-SMA).

Results

Flow chart

Between June 2019 and June 2022, 113 patients were diagnosed with SMA and were discussed at the FILNEMUS bimonthly national expert committee meetings. Among the 113 children, six had SMA0, seven had SMA2, and five were presymptomatic (diagnosed because of a previous case in the family); these patients were excluded from the study. All five presymptomatic patients received GT (see flow chart in Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart detailing SMA patients diagnosed between June 2019 and June 2022 who were eligible for gene transfer therapy. Non-SMA1 patients were excluded from this study, and all SMA1 patients were evaluated by discussion with the FILNEMUS national expert committee. The different treatment options for SMA1 patients discussed by the expert committee are shown, and SMA1 patients with more than 12 months of follow-up were included in the follow-up analysis

Full size image

The remaining 95 patients discussed at the committee meetings were SMA1. Among them, 41 were oriented toward palliative care (34 SMA1a = 83%). Of those for whom a treatment was retained, 42 received GT as a first-line drug. Twelve received an SMN2 modifier (nusinersen or risdiplam) as a first-line drug or as a bridge to a later GT administration; these patients were excluded from the follow-up analysis. Among these 12 patients, nusinersen was proposed to four patients because of clinical issues, particularly a poor “risk–benefit” balance (2 patients with persistent unexplained hepatic cytolysis, 1 patient with persistent respiratory infection and a positive viral PCR, and 1 patient with cardiopathy). Nusinersen or risdiplam was proposed for the eight other patients because of suboptimal agreement with parents on the treatment strategy (GT refusal or compassionate treatment for patients receiving palliative care recommendations). In these patients, drug selection was decided by the local clinician in charge of the patient.

Among the 42 SMA1 infants with SMA1 and GT prescriptions, one died from respiratory failure due to acute respiratory infection in the context of rapid progression of the disease before receiving GT. Forty-one patients with SMA1 thus received GT. Among them, 29 patients with more than 12 months of follow-up were included in the follow-up analysis. One patient died in the month after GT due to fatal TMA, and one due to respiratory infection. Baseline characteristics for these two patients were, respectively: female, 4.2 months at infusion, type 1b, SMN2 copy number: 2, TC/HC ratio: 1, and CHOPINTEND score: 17; and male, 6.7 months at infusion, type 1b, SMN2 copy number: 2, TC/HC ratio: 0.98, and CHOPINTEND score: 21.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics

The baseline characteristics of these 29 patients are given in Table 1 (gender, age at treatment infusion, weight, SMN2 copy number, clinical phenotype, CHOPINTEND score, HINE-2 score, TC/HC ratio). No patient at baseline required nutritional support (gastrostomy, gastric tube feeding or modified diet). One patient had NIV for less than 12 h per day because of recurrent atelectasis. Concerning the number of SMN2 copies, the seven patients with three copies of SMN2 at diagnosis had a less severe phenotype, were older (mean age: 10.6 vs. 6.6 months), and had better motor scores (mean CHOPINTEND score: 37.3 vs. 24.1 and mean HINE-2 score: 7 vs. 3) than did the 22 patients with two SMN2 copies (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients treated with gene replacement therapy included in the follow-up analysis (i.e., with more than 12 months of follow-up in June 2022) [n = 29]
Full size table

Changes in key motor milestones and vital support after onasemnogene abeparvovec treatment

After 24 months of follow-up (n = 17), all patients reached head holding. All patients with three SMN2 copies reached 30 s of unaided sitting, whereas 85% (11 patients) of those with two copies reached this level. All patients with three SMN2 copies could stand for a few seconds with aid, whereas 62% (8 patients) of those with two copies could do so. No patient with three copies of SMN2 required NIV, whereas 23% (3 patients) of those with two copies did. No patient with three copies of SMN2 required gastrostomy, whereas 15% (2 patients) of those with two copies of SMN2 required nutritional support. No patient needed a gastric tube or modified diet. Despite motor improvement, 88% of the patients (15/17) required a brace to treat spinal collapse or scoliosis. The brace was prescribed earlier in patients with two SMN2 copies (at M12) than in patients with three copies (at M24) (Tables 2, 3).

Table 2 Individual real-world endpoints from baseline to the 24-month follow-up after gene replacement therapy. Patients were first sorted from left to right by SMN2 copy number, second by SMA type, and third by age at gene transfer therapy infusion. A green circle  represents the acquisition of a developmental milestone (i.e., head holding, sitting for 30 seconds unassisted or standing for a few seconds with aid). A red circle represents the necessity of medical support (i.e., gastrostomy, NIV or spinal brace). An empty box represents the absence of developmental milestones or the need for medical support. The dashed boxes indicate that the data are not available at M24 (insufficient follow-up time). NIV stands for sleep NIV (i.e., <16 hr/day). The two patients who died are not represented. NIV: noninvasive ventilation, SMA: spinal muscular atrophy.
Full size table
Table 3 Percentages of patients grouped by SMN2 copy number reaching real-world endpoints (i.e., head holding, sitting 30 s unassisted, standing a few seconds with aid, or need for gastrostomy, NIV, or spinal brace) at M0 and M12 for all patients with 12 months of follow-up (2 deceased patients were excluded) [n = 27] (left column) and at M0, M12 and M24 for patients with 24 months of follow-up (2 deceased patients were excluded) [n = 17] (right)
Full size table

Changes in motor scores and the TC/HC ratio after treatment with onasemnogene abeparvovec

Motor function improved in all patients, as shown in Fig. 2a (CHOPINTEND score) and Fig. 2b (HINE-2 score). The CHOPINTEND and HINE-2 scores were significantly different between M0 and M24 for patients with two and three SMN2 copies, respectively (Fig. 3b). Between M12 and M24, little progress was observed on the CHOPINTEND scale, while HINE-2 continued to increase (Fig. 3b). This might have been due to saturation of the CHOPINTEND scale.

Fig. 2
figure 2

CHOPINTEND scores (left diagram), HINE-2 scores (middle) and TC/HC ratio (right) as a function of age for the 27 SMA patients (2 deceased patients excluded). TC: thoracic circumference, HC: head circumference. Red lines represent SMA patients with two copies of SMN2, and blue lines represent SMA patients with three copies of SMN2. For comparative purposes, the CHOPINTEND score, HINE-2 score and TC/HC ratio of the two presymptomatic patients with more than 12 months of follow-up in June 2022 are shown as black lines in the figure

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Mean CHOPINTEND scores (left diagram), HINE-2 scores (middle) and TC/HC ratio (right) A at M0, M6 and M12 for all patients with 12 months of follow-up [n = 27] (2 deceased patients excluded) and B at M0, M6, M12 and M24 for patients with 24 months of follow-up [n = 17] (2 deceased patients excluded). TC: thoracic circumference, HC: head circumference. * indicates a significant difference (i.e., p value < 0.05 paired Student’s t test) between baseline and M12 (top 3 diagrams) or between baseline and M24 (bottom 3 diagrams)

Full size image

The TC/HC ratio increased in all patients (Fig. 2c). The lower limit of 0.85 (correlated with worse respiratory impairment [25, 26]) was never observed. The increase in the TC/HC ratio between M0 and M12 was not significant for patients with two SMN2 copies, whereas it was significant for patients with three copies, strongly suggesting that the increase in thoraco-pulmonary growth was slower in patients with two SMN2 copies.

Adverse events after onasemnogene abeparvovec

Among the 29 patients treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec, one patient presented a generalized TMA on day 7 after GT (previously reported [16]). Intensive care was carried out, with hemofiltration and three eculizimab infusions. Despite this treatment, the patient died 6 weeks after the first symptoms. Another patient (SMA1a) developed severe respiratory failure 3 months after GT, requiring intensive care and permanent invasive ventilatory support without any improvement in the four following week. A withdrawal procedure was carried out after ethical committee discussions and parental consent.

Early biological follow-up revealed transaminase increases in all patients [ASAT from a mean of 42.5 IU at M0 to 74.6 IU at M2 (range 26–210) and ALAT from a mean of 29.3 IU at M0 to 69.8 IU at M2 (range 17–311 UI)] without hepatic failure, followed by complete normalization at M3 for 24/27 patients. The troponin I value increased in all patients, with a median value of 10 ng/l (range 10–55 ng/l) at M0 and a median value of 31 ng/l (range 31–75 ng/l) at M2 until normalization at M6. None of the patients had ECG or cardiac echography abnormalities.

Forty-seven percent of the patients with 24 months of follow-up had pneumopathies (range: 0 − 3 pneumopathies within 24 months of follow-up), and 26% were hospitalized at least once for respiratory infections (range: 0 − 1 hospitalization per year).

Discussion

Real-world outcomes

We report the real-world clinical outcomes of all SMA1 infants in France treated by GT as the first-line therapy between June 2019 and June 2022; all had had more than 12 months of follow-up. The GT indication was decided after thorough discussion by the FILNEMUS national expert committee. Patients with significant respiratory and/or bulbar impairment at diagnosis were oriented toward palliative care. This cohort of 29 infants, who were followed for at least 1 year and at most 2 years, allowed us to obtain real-world data from a homogeneous cohort of SMA1 patients treated only with GT, whereas previous reports were more heterogeneous and included patients initially or later treated with SMN2 modifiers (nusinersen, risdiplam).

Concerning the 29 patients included in the follow-up study, motor function test (CHOPINTEND and HINE-2) results improved in all patients, in line with the findings of previous studies. Concerning key motor milestones, the outcome was also favorable, and at 2 years post-GT all 17 patients had acquired head support, almost 90% (15/17) were able to sit unassisted, and 12/17 were able to stand for a few seconds with aid.

The reported impact of these novel therapies on pulmonary well-being and the improving trajectory of pulmonary and bulbar morbidity, compared to the natural history of SMA, is particularly noteworthy in our series [8, 27]. The TC/HC ratio revealed favorable thoraco-pulmonary growth, with only three patients needing ventilation after 2 years of follow-up. This finding is strikingly different from our previous experience in the natural history of SMA1, during which a decreased ratio (TC/HC < 0.85) was observed and constituted a pejorative prognostic factor (Fig. 2) [25, 26]. These results suggest the fairly good health of the respiratory and bulbar muscles. In contrast, the results of several published studies evaluating nusinersen were less favorable [28,29,30]. However, it should be stressed that this cohort was probably less severe than that reported in previous nusinersen studies (no respiratory or bulbar dysfunction and a large proportion of SMA type 1c). Interestingly, our data suggest that the rate of thoraco-pulmonary growth was slower in patients with two SMN2 copies than in those with three copies.

Despite the striking global motor improvements, spinal deformities were not prevented by GT, and almost all the patients required a spinal brace by the second year of follow-up. This underlines the observation that, although GT drastically improves motor outcome, patients still suffer from physically significant complications and disability. The brace indication is based on the clinical occurrence of scoliosis.

Our study did not allow proper comparisons of functional courses between patients with two or three SMN2 copies since the severity of disease differed between these two groups at baseline. Nevertheless, our results support previous observations suggesting that SMA1 children with three SMN2 mutations have less severe phenotypes and better outcomes.

Clinical scores

Our data underline the importance of a multimodal motor score evaluation. In fact, between M12 and M24, little progress was observed on the CHOPINTEND scale, whereas more progress was observed on the HINE-2 scale. These differences might be because certain items of the CHOPINTEND are never reached by SMA patients, even after treatment (e.g., the item requiring strong posterior axial muscles of the neck to raise the head while facing the ground). Additionally, the CHOPINTEND does not test whether motor acquisition appears after 6 months of age. Our data suggest that motor development continues to progress between M12 and M24 because the HINE-2 score improved significantly and the proportion of patients sitting without support and standing increased from M12 to M24. Our criterion to add a second treatment line after GT was a 12-month stagnation period in motor scores. Due to the continuous increase in HINE-2 score in the patients of our cohort, however, no second line was initiated during the study period.

National committee decision process and palliative care

Palliative care was proposed for 41 SMA1 patients, most of whom had SMA1a (34 SMA1a/41 SMA1) based on the clinical impression of a poor prognosis in patients with initial severe bulbar signs and respiratory distress in a no-return neurological disease. These patients were treated exclusively by supportive care and died in most cases over the next 6 months, as previously reported [26]. In all the cases, the decision not to administer GT to patients with respiratory insufficiency was made in accordance with the parents and the local legislation and for the main benefit of the child [24].

The age of treatment initiation in our GT cohort was delayed compared to that in the clinical trial [13] because our treatment criteria tended to include SMA type 1b and particularly 1c patients, who were consequently older at diagnosis and treatment. Motor development and the need for clinical support (i.e., brace, NIV or gastrostomy) are in line with the findings of other studies reporting GT outcomes in SMA patients with similar disease severities [8].

Our strategy of systematic discussion with an online national expert committee did not delay treatment and enabled us to propose GT infusion within a short delay (mean delay: 15 days) after the clinical diagnosis was made. The systematic discussions with this online committee ensured consistent care of SMA1 patients all over the country, without disparities. As the committee is online, it easily brings together many experts for discussion and was not impacted by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which occurred during the period of this study. Urgent meetings were sometimes organized, which shows the good reactivity of this national strategy. SMA1 therapy is an emergency due to the rapid disease progression and loss of function, which may occur within a few days, particularly in 1a and 1b infants.

In our study, we chose to analyze naive patients who had not received combined therapy for the first 12 months in order to evaluate the benefits of GT alone. In the literature, a number of patients treated with GT have been reported, most of whom were treated with nusinersen [7, 31]. All patients improved after GT, but it is difficult to assess the respective impact of each treatment and the benefits of their association in the combined therapies. The economic aspects and treatment costs also need to be considered [31, 32]. In our cohort, no second treatment was initiated because of continuous motor improvement.

Severe adverse events

Early diagnosis of severe adverse events such as TMA is mandatory. This relies on close biological monitoring during the first 2 weeks, particularly regarding proteinuria, thrombocytosis, and elevated LDH and transaminases, so that therapies, such as a first-line increase in steroids and second-line eculizimab, can be started rapidly [16, 19].

Prognostic factors

The presymptomatic children (both diagnosed because of a previous familial case) had normal motor development and a normal age at which they were able to walk. Early treatment and good initial motor scores were related to better outcomes according to our data, as previously reported [8]. A board of European experts has proposed age at treatment administration, respiratory impairment, motor level evaluated with CHOPINTEND, and SMN2 copy number as prognostic factors. Our group recently underlined the prognostic importance of the median CMAP on motor function at M6 [33].

Perspectives

The strength of our work is the presentation of real-world data concerning the efficacy of GT in a relatively large set of treatment-naive SMA1 patients from different regions of France through a national strategy. In the SMA population, the problems of a low number of patients in the cohorts, clinical heterogeneity, and treatment multiplicity will always persist. In this context, conventional randomized control trials are unlikely to be feasible. The French SMA registry has been systematically collecting data since September 2016. Additional long-term data analysis with statistical group homogenization will help clarify initial prognostic factors that impact functional outcomes. Finally, GT seems particularly effective for presymptomatic patients [14]. A national neonatal screening project is planned for the coming year and is still active in two pilot regions in France.

Availability of data and materials

In order to protect patients’ privacy under the French regulation (CNIL—Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés), the dataset supporting the conclusions of this research is only available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author (RB). No direct link to the dataset can be provided.

Abbreviations

GT:

Gene transfer therapy

NIV:

Noninvasive ventilation

TC:

Thoracic circumference

HC:

Head circumference

PT/PC:

Cranial circumference

FILNEMUS:

French Rare Health Care for Neuromuscular Diseases Network

SMA:

Spinal muscular atrophy

References

  1. Verhaart IEC, Robertson A, Wilson IJ, Aartsma-Rus A, Cameron S, Jones CC, et al. Prevalence, incidence and carrier frequency of 5q-linked spinal muscular atrophy—a literature review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):124.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Finkel R, Bertini E, Muntoni F, Mercuri E. 209th ENMC international workshop: outcome measures and clinical trial readiness in spinal muscular atrophy 7–9 November 2014, Heemskerk The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord. 2015;25(7):593–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mercuri E, Bertini E, Iannaccone ST. Childhood spinal muscular atrophy: controversies and challenges. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(5):443–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Calucho M, Bernal S, Alías L, March F, Venceslá A, Rodríguez-Álvarez FJ, et al. Correlation between SMA type and SMN2 copy number revisited: an analysis of 625 unrelated Spanish patients and a compilation of 2834 reported cases. Neuromuscul Disord. 2018;28(3):208–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Feldkötter M, Schwarzer V, Wirth R, Wienker TF, Wirth B. Quantitative analyses of SMN1 and SMN2 based on real-time lightCycler PCR: fast and highly reliable carrier testing and prediction of severity of spinal muscular atrophy. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;70(2):358–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blair HA. Onasemnogene abeparvovec: a review in spinal muscular atrophy. CNS Drugs. 2022;36(9):995–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weiß C, Ziegler A, Becker LL, Johannsen J, Brennenstuhl H, Schreiber G, et al. Gene replacement therapy with onasemnogene abeparvovec in children with spinal muscular atrophy aged 24 months or younger and bodyweight up to 15 kg: an observational cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022;6(1):17–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Day JW, Finkel RS, Chiriboga CA, Connolly AM, Crawford TO, Darras BT, et al. Onasemnogene abeparvovec gene therapy for symptomatic infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy in patients with two copies of SMN2 (STR1VE): an open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):284–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Waldrop MA, Karingada C, Storey MA, Powers B, Iammarino MA, Miller NF, et al. Gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy: safety and early outcomes. Pediatrics. 2020;146(3):e20200729.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stettner GM, Hasselmann O, Tscherter A, Galiart E, Jacquier D, Klein A. Treatment of spinal muscular atrophy with onasemnogene abeparvovec in Switzerland: a prospective observational case series study. BMC Neurol. 2023;23:88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bitetti I, Lanzara V, Margiotta G, Varone A. Onasemnogene abeparvovec gene replacement therapy for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy: a real-world observational study. Gene Ther. 2023;30(7–8):592–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Erdos J, Wild C. Mid- and long-term (at least 12 months) follow-up of patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treated with nusinersen, Onasemnogene abeparvovec, risdiplam or combination therapies: a systematic review of real-world study data. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2022;39:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mendell J, Al-Zaidy S, Shell R, Arnold WD, Rodino-Klapac L, Prior T, et al. Single-dose gene-replacement therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2017;2(377):1713–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Strauss KA, Farrar MA, Muntoni F, Saito K, Mendell JR, Servais L, et al. Onasemnogene abeparvovec for presymptomatic infants with three copies of SMN2 at risk for spinal muscular atrophy: the Phase III SPR1NT trial. Nat Med. 2022;28(7):1390–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mercuri E, Muntoni F, Baranello G, Masson R, Boespflug-Tanguy O, Bruno C, et al. Onasemnogene abeparvovec gene therapy for symptomatic infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (STR1VE-EU): an open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(10):832–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guillou J, de Pellegars A, Porcheret F, Frémeaux-Bacchi V, Allain-Launay E, Debord C, et al. Fatal thrombotic microangiopathy case following adeno-associated viral SMN gene therapy. Blood Adv [Internet]. 20 mai 2022 [cité 9 juill 2022]; Disponible sur: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2473952922003457

  17. Kichula EA, Proud CM, Farrar MA, Kwon JM, Saito K, Desguerre I, et al. Expert recommendations and clinical considerations in the use of onasemnogene abeparvovec gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. Muscle Nerve. 2021;64(4):413–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Yazaki K, Sakuma S, Hikita N, Fujimaru R, Hamazaki T. Child neurology: pathologically confirmed thrombotic microangiopathy caused by onasemnogene abeparvovec treatment for SMA. Neurology. 2022;98(19):808–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chand D, Zaidman C, Arya K, Millner R, Farrar M, Mackie F, et al. Thrombotic microangiopathy following onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy: a case series. J Pediatr. 2020;231:265–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chand DH, Zaidman C, Arya K, Millner R, Farrar MA, Mackie FE, et al. Thrombotic microangiopathy following onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy: a case series. J Pediatr. 2021;231:265–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Feldman AG, Parsons JA, Dutmer CM, Veerapandiyan A, Hafberg E, Maloney N, et al. Subacute liver failure following gene replacement therapy for spinal muscular atrophy type 1. J Pediatr. 2020;225:252-258.e1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Retson L, Tiwari N, Vaughn J, Bernes S, Adelson PD, Mansfield K, et al. Epithelioid neoplasm of the spinal cord in a child with spinal muscular atrophy treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec. Mol Ther. 2023;31(10):2991–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kirschner J, Butoianu N, Goemans N, Haberlova J, Kostera-Pruszczyk A, Mercuri E, et al. European ad-hoc consensus statement on gene replacement therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2020;28:38–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Boursange S, Araneda M, Stalens C, Desguerre I, Barnerias C, Nougues MC, et al. Parents’ dilemma: a therapeutic decision for children with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type 1. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:1062390.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ropars J, Barnerias C, Hully M, Chabalier D, Peudenier S, Barzic A, et al. Thoracic circumference: a new outcome measure in spinal muscular atrophy type 1? Neuromuscul Disord. 2019;29(6):415–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hully M, Barnerias C, Chabalier D, Le Guen S, Germa V, Deladriere E, et al. Palliative care in SMA type 1: a prospective multicenter French study based on parents’ reports. Front Pediatr. 2020;8:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Paul GR, Gushue C, Kotha K, Shell R. The respiratory impact of novel therapies for spinal muscular atrophy. Pediatr Pulmonol [Internet]. 24 oct 2020 [cité 13 nov 2020];n/a(n/a). Disponible sur: https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.25135

  28. Audic F, de la Banda MGG, Bernoux D, Ramirez-Garcia P, Durigneux J, Barnerias C, et al. Effects of nusinersen after one year of treatment in 123 children with SMA type 1 or 2: a French real-life observational study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):148.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Aragon-Gawinska K, Seferian AM, Daron A, Gargaun E, Vuillerot C, Cances C, et al. Nusinersen in patients older than 7 months with spinal muscular atrophy type 1: a cohort study. Neurology. 2018;91(14):e1312–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pane M, Coratti G, Sansone V, Messina S, Bruno C, Catteruccia M, et al. Nusinersen in type 1 spinal muscular atrophy: 12-month real world data. Ann Neurol. 2019;86:443–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Harada Y, Rao VK, Arya K, Kuntz NL, DiDonato CJ, Napchan-Pomerantz G, et al. Combination molecular therapies for type 1 spinal muscular atrophy. Muscle Nerve. 2020;62(4):550–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Friese J, Geitmann S, Holzwarth D, Müller N, Sassen R, Baur U, et al. Safety monitoring of gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy with onasemnogene abeparvovec—a single centre experience. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2021;8(2):209–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Barrois R, Barnerias C, Deladrière E, Leloup-Germa V, Tervil B, Audic F, et al. A new score combining compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes and motor score is predictive of motor outcome after AVXS-101 (onasemnogene abeparvovec) SMA therapy. Neuromuscul Disord. 2023;33(4):309–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the ATU Gene Therapy team of the ANSM (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament), the FILNEMUS network (French Network of Neuromuscular Reference Centers) and EURO-NMD (European Reference Network of Neuromuscular Diseases).

Funding

Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé (ANSM).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IHU Imagine, Paris University, 24, Boulevard du Montparnasse, 75015, Paris, France

    Isabelle Desguerre

  2. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, AP-HP, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, 149 rue de sèvres, 75015, Paris, France

    Isabelle Desguerre, Rémi Barrois & Christine Barnerias

  3. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Hôpital Timone Enfants, 264 rue Saint-Pierre, 13385, Marseille, France

    Frédérique Audic & Brigitte Chabrol

  4. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Lille University Hospital Center, 2 avenue Oscar Lambret, 59000, Lille, France

    Jean Baptiste Davion

  5. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Angers University Hospital Center, 4 rue Larrey, 49933, Angers, France

    Julien Durigneux

  6. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Pellegrin University Hospital Center, Hôpital des Enfants, place Amélie-Raba-Léon, 33086, Bordeaux, France

    Caroline Espil-Taris

  7. Pediatric Neurology and ICU Department, Garches Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases (NEIF for FILNEMUS; RPC for Euro-NMD ERN), AP-HP Paris-Saclay Université, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré (UVSQ), 104 boulevard Raymond Poincaré, 92380, Garches, France

    Marta Gomez-Garcia de la Banda & Susana Quijano-Roy

  8. Department of Pediatric Neurology and Handicaps, French Competence Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Boulevard Tonnellé, Hôpital Clocheville, 2 Boulevard Tonnellé, 37000, Tours, France

    Marine Guichard

  9. Department of Pediatric Neurology, AP-HP, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Hôpital Armand Trousseau, 26 avenue du Docteur Arnold-Netter, 75012, Paris, France

    Arnaud Isapof & Marie Christine Nougues

  10. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Strasbourg University Hospital Center, Hôpital de Hautepierre, 1 avenue Molière, 67098, Strasbourg, France

    Vincent Laugel

  11. Department of Neuromuscular Pathology, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, -Bron, 59 boulevard Pinel, 69677, Lyon-Bron, France

    Laure Le Goff

  12. Department of Medical Genetics, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Nantes University Hospital Center, 1 Place Alexis-Ricordeau, 44093, Nantes, France

    Sandra Mercier

  13. Department of Pediatrics, French Competence Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Hôpital d’Enfants ASFA, CS 81010, 97404, Saint Denis Cedex, Réunion, France

    Anne Pervillé

  14. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Nice University Hospital Center, Hôpital Lenval, 57 Avenue de la Californie, 06200, Nice, France

    Christian Richelme

  15. Department of Pediatrics, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, American Memorial Hospital, Reims University Hospital Center, 49 Rue Cognacq Jay, 51092, Reims, France

    Marie Thibaud

  16. CMR Neuromusculaire, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital Center, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Catherine Sarret

  17. Department of Infant Medicine, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Nancy University Hospital Center, Rue du Morvan, 54511, Vandoeuvre lès Nancy, France

    Cyril Schweitzer

  18. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Competence Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Grenoble University Hospital Center, Hôpital Couple Enfant, Quai Yermolof, 38700, Grenoble, France

    Hervé Testard

  19. Department of Pediatrics, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, University Hospital Center, Avenue François Mitterrand, BP 350, 97448, Saint Pierre Cedex, Réunion, France

    Valérie Trommsdorff

  20. Department of Pediatrics, French Competence Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Rouen University Hospital Center, Charles Nicolle, 1 Rue de Germont, 76031, Rouen, France

    Catherine Vanhulle

  21. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Greater South‒West Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Hôpital Gui de Chauliac, University Hospital Center Montpellier, 80 Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France

    Ulrike Walther-Louvier

  22. Department of Pediatrics, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Besançon University Hospital Center - Hôpital Jean Minjoz, 3 boulevard A. Fleming, 25030, Besançon, France

    Cécilia Altuzarra

  23. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Competence Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Dijon University Hospital Center, Hôpital d’Enfants, 14 rue Paul Gaffarel, 21079, Dijon, France

    Mondher Chouchane

  24. LaTIM INSERM UMR 1101, French Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases Brest University Hospital Center, Hôpital Morvan, Boulevard Tanguy Prigent, 29609, Brest, France

    Juliette Ropars

  25. Department of Pediatric Neurology, French Greater South‒West Reference Center for Neuromuscular Diseases, Hôpital des Enfants, University Hospital Center Toulouse, 330 av de Grande Bretagne-TSA, 31059, Toulouse, France

    Claude Cances

Authors
  1. Isabelle Desguerre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rémi Barrois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frédérique Audic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine Barnerias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brigitte Chabrol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jean Baptiste Davion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Julien Durigneux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Caroline Espil-Taris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marta Gomez-Garcia de la Banda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marine Guichard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Arnaud Isapof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Marie Christine Nougues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Vincent Laugel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Laure Le Goff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Sandra Mercier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Anne Pervillé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Christian Richelme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Marie Thibaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Catherine Sarret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Cyril Schweitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Hervé Testard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Valérie Trommsdorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Catherine Vanhulle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Ulrike Walther-Louvier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Cécilia Altuzarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Mondher Chouchane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Juliette Ropars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Susana Quijano-Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Claude Cances
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ID and CC conceptualized the study. All the authors (ID, RB, FA, CB, BC, JBD, JD, CET, MGG, MG, AI, MCN, VL, LLG, SM, AP, CR, MT, CS, CSch, HT, VT, CV, UWL, CA, MC, JR, SQR and CC) participated in the clinical follow-up of the patients and contributed to the data collection. RB and CC performed the formal data analysis. FA was a significant contributor to the data visualization. ID, CC and RB wrote the original draft. ID, CC and SQR reviewed and wrote the final version of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rémi Barrois.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All families provided informed written consent after thorough explanations of the study goals and procedures were given. The local ethics committee and the committee on human research, Est-III, granted authorization to perform this study (IRB approval statement; MR004: 2206723 v 0) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

All the authors provided their consent for publication of the present version of the manuscript.

Competing interests

SQR serves as a Scientific Advisory Board member for NOVARTIS GT, BIOGEN, and ROCHE and is the principal investigator in clinical trials for all three companies. MGGB is a subinvestigator in SMA studies and serves as a Scientific Advisory Board member for all three companies.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Desguerre, I., Barrois, R., Audic, F. et al. Real-world multidisciplinary outcomes of onasemnogene abeparvovec monotherapy in patients with spinal muscular atrophy type 1: experience of the French cohort in the first three years of treatment. Orphanet J Rare Dis 19, 344 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03326-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03326-3

Keywords

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

ISSN: 1750-1172