↓ Skip to main content

Lucerastat, an iminosugar with potential as substrate reduction therapy for glycolipid storage disorders: safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lucerastat, an iminosugar with potential as substrate reduction therapy for glycolipid storage disorders: safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13023-017-0565-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. Guérard, O. Morand, J. Dingemanse

Abstract

Lucerastat, an inhibitor of glucosylceramide synthase, has the potential to restore the balance between synthesis and degradation of glycosphingolipids in glycolipid storage disorders such as Gaucher disease and Fabry disease. The safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of oral lucerastat were evaluated in two separate randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single- and multiple-ascending dose studies (SAD and MAD, respectively) in healthy male subjects. In the SAD study, 31 subjects received placebo or a single oral dose of 100, 300, 500, or 1000 mg lucerastat. Eight additional subjects received two doses of 1000 mg lucerastat or placebo separated by 12 h. In the MAD study, 37 subjects received placebo or 200, 500, or 1000 mg b.i.d. lucerastat for 7 consecutive days. Six subjects in the 500 mg cohort received lucerastat in both absence and presence of food. In the SAD study, 15 adverse events (AEs) were reported in ten subjects. Eighteen AEs were reported in 15 subjects in the MAD study, in which the 500 mg dose cohort was repeated because of elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) values in 4 subjects, not observed in other dose cohorts. No severe or serious AE was observed. No clinically relevant abnormalities regarding vital signs and 12-lead electrocardiograms were observed. Lucerastat Cmax values were comparable between studies, with geometric mean Cmax 10.5 (95% CI: 7.5, 14.7) and 11.1 (95% CI: 8.7, 14.2) μg/mL in the SAD and MAD study, respectively, after 1000 mg lucerastat b.i.d. tmax (0.5 - 4 h) and t1/2 (3.6 - 8.1 h) were also within the same range across dose groups in both studies. Using the Gough power model, dose proportionality was confirmed in the SAD study for Cmax and AUC0-∞, and for AUC0-12 in the MAD study. Fed-to-fasted geometric mean ratio for AUC0-12 was 0.93 (90% CI: 0.80, 1.07) and tmax was the same with or without food, indicating no food effect. Incidence of drug-related AEs did not increase with dose. No serious AEs were reported for any subject. Overall, lucerastat was well tolerated. These results warrant further investigation of substrate reduction therapy with lucerastat in patients with glycolipid storage disorders. SAD study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier NCT02944487 on the 24(th) of October 2016 (retrospectively registered). MAD study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier NCT02944474 on the 25(th) of October 2016 (retrospectively registered). A Study to Assess the Safety and Tolerability of Lucerastat in Subjects With Fabry Disease. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02930655 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Master 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 40 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Chemistry 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 45 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,701,956
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#174
of 2,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,151
of 421,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#7
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.