BIO101 in Sarcopenic Seniors at Risk of Mobility Disability: Results of a Double‐Blind Randomised Interventional Phase 2b Trial

ABSTRACT Background Sarcopenia is a progressive muscle disorder that may lead to mobility disability. No pharmaceutical interventions are currently available, and treatment relies on physical exercise and nutrition. The aim of SARA‐INT was to investigate whether BIO101 (20‐hydroxyecdysone), an activ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Roger A. Fielding, Michael M. Dao, Kevin Cannon, Moise Desvarieux, Sam S. Miller, Michael Paul Gimness, Donald M. Brandon, Dennis T. Villareal, Olivier Bruyere, Ivan Bautmans, Kyle Rickner, Robert Perry, Stephen B. Kritchevsky, Nicolas Musi, Joe M. Chehade, Judith L. Kirstein, Evelien Gielen, Paul Pickrell, Pierre Dilda, Rene Lafont, Carole Margalef, Yves Rolland, Susanna Del Signore, Jean Mariani, Samuel Agus, Cendrine Tourette, Waly Dioh, Rob vanMaanen, Stanislas Veillet
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-04-01
Series:Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.13750
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849724576700825600
author Roger A. Fielding
Michael M. Dao
Kevin Cannon
Moise Desvarieux
Sam S. Miller
Michael Paul Gimness
Donald M. Brandon
Dennis T. Villareal
Olivier Bruyere
Ivan Bautmans
Kyle Rickner
Robert Perry
Stephen B. Kritchevsky
Nicolas Musi
Joe M. Chehade
Judith L. Kirstein
Evelien Gielen
Paul Pickrell
Pierre Dilda
Rene Lafont
Carole Margalef
Yves Rolland
Susanna Del Signore
Jean Mariani
Samuel Agus
Cendrine Tourette
Waly Dioh
Rob vanMaanen
Stanislas Veillet
author_facet Roger A. Fielding
Michael M. Dao
Kevin Cannon
Moise Desvarieux
Sam S. Miller
Michael Paul Gimness
Donald M. Brandon
Dennis T. Villareal
Olivier Bruyere
Ivan Bautmans
Kyle Rickner
Robert Perry
Stephen B. Kritchevsky
Nicolas Musi
Joe M. Chehade
Judith L. Kirstein
Evelien Gielen
Paul Pickrell
Pierre Dilda
Rene Lafont
Carole Margalef
Yves Rolland
Susanna Del Signore
Jean Mariani
Samuel Agus
Cendrine Tourette
Waly Dioh
Rob vanMaanen
Stanislas Veillet
author_sort Roger A. Fielding
collection DOAJ
description ABSTRACT Background Sarcopenia is a progressive muscle disorder that may lead to mobility disability. No pharmaceutical interventions are currently available, and treatment relies on physical exercise and nutrition. The aim of SARA‐INT was to investigate whether BIO101 (20‐hydroxyecdysone), an activator of the MAS receptor, is safe and improves muscle function and physical performance of community dwelling older sarcopenic patients. Methods SARA‐INT was a randomised three‐arm interventional study (BIO101 175 mg bid /350 mg bid/placebo) with a planned 6‐month treatment (up to 9 months in 50 subjects). Eligibility criteria for sarcopenia were meeting FNIH criteria for sarcopenia and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score ≤ 8/12 in men and women aged ≥ 65 years. Primary endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) in gait speed (GS) measured by 400‐m walking test (400MWT), secondary endpoints being CFB in other physical performance tests. Results A total of 233 participants were randomised (mean age 75.5 ± 7.12; 54.3% female), of whom 232 and 156 were included in the full analysis set (FAS) and per‐protocol (PP) populations, respectively. Due to COVID‐19 pandemic, 55% of on‐site end‐of‐treatment efficacy assessments were lost, reducing the studies' power. In the primary analysis (mix of 6/9 months), BIO101 350 mg bid treatment after 6/9 months was associated with an improvement in the 400MWT of 0.07 m/s versus placebo in the FAS population (not significant) and of 0.09 m/s in the PP population (p = 0.008). BIO101 350 mg bid treatment effect on the 400MWT GS was also observed in pre‐defined subpopulations at higher risk of mobility disability (0.0474 m/s for slow walkers, 0.0521 m/s for obese and 0.0662 m/s for chair stand sub‐score ≤ 2 from SPPB in the FAS population), with a trend for a dose response. BIO101 showed a good safety profile at both doses (number of subjects with related treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of 13 (16.0%), 10 (13.3%) and 10 (13.5%) in the placebo, 175 mg and 350 mg BIO101 groups, respectively). Conclusions After 6 to 9 months of treatment, BIO101 350 mg bid showed strong trends consistent with a clinically relevant effect on the 400MWT GS, close to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in sarcopenia (0.1 m/s). This was also shown in predefined subpopulations at higher risk of mobility disability. BIO101 showed a good safety profile. Taken together, efficacy and safety data of this Phase 2 trial encourage us to pursue further development of BIO101 for the treatment of sarcopenia.
format Article
id doaj-art-445da26fd008498c9b0048a47cdc2ef9
institution DOAJ
issn 2190-5991
2190-6009
language English
publishDate 2025-04-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
spelling doaj-art-445da26fd008498c9b0048a47cdc2ef92025-08-20T03:10:42ZengWileyJournal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle2190-59912190-60092025-04-01162n/an/a10.1002/jcsm.13750BIO101 in Sarcopenic Seniors at Risk of Mobility Disability: Results of a Double‐Blind Randomised Interventional Phase 2b TrialRoger A. Fielding0Michael M. Dao1Kevin Cannon2Moise Desvarieux3Sam S. Miller4Michael Paul Gimness5Donald M. Brandon6Dennis T. Villareal7Olivier Bruyere8Ivan Bautmans9Kyle Rickner10Robert Perry11Stephen B. Kritchevsky12Nicolas Musi13Joe M. Chehade14Judith L. Kirstein15Evelien Gielen16Paul Pickrell17Pierre Dilda18Rene Lafont19Carole Margalef20Yves Rolland21Susanna Del Signore22Jean Mariani23Samuel Agus24Cendrine Tourette25Waly Dioh26Rob vanMaanen27Stanislas Veillet28Nutrition, Exercise Physiology, and Sarcopenia Laboratory Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University Boston Massachusetts USAAMD Medical Group and National Institute of Clinical Research Inc. Garden Grove California USAPMG Research of Wilmington Wilmington North Carolina USADepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University New York New York USASAM CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTER/Science Advancing Medicine San Antonio Texas USAFamily Medical Specialists of Florida Plant City Florida USACalifornia Research Foundation San Diego California USACenter for Translational Research on Inflammatory Diseases Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center Houston Texas USAResearch Unit in Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics University of Liège Liège BelgiumFrailty & Resilience in Ageing Research Unit (FRIA), Vitality Research Group, and Gerontology Department Vrije Universiteit Brussel Brussels BelgiumTekton Research Yukon Oklahoma USAPanax Clinical Research Miami Lakes Florida USASection on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston‐Salem North Carolina USADepartment of Medicine Cedars‐Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles California USADepartment of Medicine University of Florida College of Medicine Jacksonville Florida USAVelocity Clinical Research Banning California USADepartment of Geriatric Medicine, UZ Leuven, & Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Division of Gerontology and Geriatrics KU Leuven Leuven BelgiumTekton Research Austin Texas USABIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceBIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceBIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceIHU HealthAge, Centre Hospitalo‐Universitaire de Toulouse; CERPOP UMR 1295 University of Toulouse III Toulouse FranceBluecompanion Ltd London UKBIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceBIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceBIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceBIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceBIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceBIOPHYTIS SA Sorbonne Université Paris FranceABSTRACT Background Sarcopenia is a progressive muscle disorder that may lead to mobility disability. No pharmaceutical interventions are currently available, and treatment relies on physical exercise and nutrition. The aim of SARA‐INT was to investigate whether BIO101 (20‐hydroxyecdysone), an activator of the MAS receptor, is safe and improves muscle function and physical performance of community dwelling older sarcopenic patients. Methods SARA‐INT was a randomised three‐arm interventional study (BIO101 175 mg bid /350 mg bid/placebo) with a planned 6‐month treatment (up to 9 months in 50 subjects). Eligibility criteria for sarcopenia were meeting FNIH criteria for sarcopenia and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score ≤ 8/12 in men and women aged ≥ 65 years. Primary endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) in gait speed (GS) measured by 400‐m walking test (400MWT), secondary endpoints being CFB in other physical performance tests. Results A total of 233 participants were randomised (mean age 75.5 ± 7.12; 54.3% female), of whom 232 and 156 were included in the full analysis set (FAS) and per‐protocol (PP) populations, respectively. Due to COVID‐19 pandemic, 55% of on‐site end‐of‐treatment efficacy assessments were lost, reducing the studies' power. In the primary analysis (mix of 6/9 months), BIO101 350 mg bid treatment after 6/9 months was associated with an improvement in the 400MWT of 0.07 m/s versus placebo in the FAS population (not significant) and of 0.09 m/s in the PP population (p = 0.008). BIO101 350 mg bid treatment effect on the 400MWT GS was also observed in pre‐defined subpopulations at higher risk of mobility disability (0.0474 m/s for slow walkers, 0.0521 m/s for obese and 0.0662 m/s for chair stand sub‐score ≤ 2 from SPPB in the FAS population), with a trend for a dose response. BIO101 showed a good safety profile at both doses (number of subjects with related treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of 13 (16.0%), 10 (13.3%) and 10 (13.5%) in the placebo, 175 mg and 350 mg BIO101 groups, respectively). Conclusions After 6 to 9 months of treatment, BIO101 350 mg bid showed strong trends consistent with a clinically relevant effect on the 400MWT GS, close to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in sarcopenia (0.1 m/s). This was also shown in predefined subpopulations at higher risk of mobility disability. BIO101 showed a good safety profile. Taken together, efficacy and safety data of this Phase 2 trial encourage us to pursue further development of BIO101 for the treatment of sarcopenia.https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.1375020‐hydroxyecdysoneBIO101clinical trialgait speedmobility disabilitysarcopenia
spellingShingle Roger A. Fielding
Michael M. Dao
Kevin Cannon
Moise Desvarieux
Sam S. Miller
Michael Paul Gimness
Donald M. Brandon
Dennis T. Villareal
Olivier Bruyere
Ivan Bautmans
Kyle Rickner
Robert Perry
Stephen B. Kritchevsky
Nicolas Musi
Joe M. Chehade
Judith L. Kirstein
Evelien Gielen
Paul Pickrell
Pierre Dilda
Rene Lafont
Carole Margalef
Yves Rolland
Susanna Del Signore
Jean Mariani
Samuel Agus
Cendrine Tourette
Waly Dioh
Rob vanMaanen
Stanislas Veillet
BIO101 in Sarcopenic Seniors at Risk of Mobility Disability: Results of a Double‐Blind Randomised Interventional Phase 2b Trial
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
20‐hydroxyecdysone
BIO101
clinical trial
gait speed
mobility disability
sarcopenia
title BIO101 in Sarcopenic Seniors at Risk of Mobility Disability: Results of a Double‐Blind Randomised Interventional Phase 2b Trial
title_full BIO101 in Sarcopenic Seniors at Risk of Mobility Disability: Results of a Double‐Blind Randomised Interventional Phase 2b Trial
title_fullStr BIO101 in Sarcopenic Seniors at Risk of Mobility Disability: Results of a Double‐Blind Randomised Interventional Phase 2b Trial
title_full_unstemmed BIO101 in Sarcopenic Seniors at Risk of Mobility Disability: Results of a Double‐Blind Randomised Interventional Phase 2b Trial
title_short BIO101 in Sarcopenic Seniors at Risk of Mobility Disability: Results of a Double‐Blind Randomised Interventional Phase 2b Trial
title_sort bio101 in sarcopenic seniors at risk of mobility disability results of a double blind randomised interventional phase 2b trial
topic 20‐hydroxyecdysone
BIO101
clinical trial
gait speed
mobility disability
sarcopenia
url https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.13750
work_keys_str_mv AT rogerafielding bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT michaelmdao bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT kevincannon bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT moisedesvarieux bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT samsmiller bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT michaelpaulgimness bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT donaldmbrandon bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT dennistvillareal bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT olivierbruyere bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT ivanbautmans bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT kylerickner bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT robertperry bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT stephenbkritchevsky bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT nicolasmusi bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT joemchehade bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT judithlkirstein bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT eveliengielen bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT paulpickrell bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT pierredilda bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT renelafont bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT carolemargalef bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT yvesrolland bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT susannadelsignore bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT jeanmariani bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT samuelagus bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT cendrinetourette bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT walydioh bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT robvanmaanen bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial
AT stanislasveillet bio101insarcopenicseniorsatriskofmobilitydisabilityresultsofadoubleblindrandomisedinterventionalphase2btrial