Sukumar Nagendran
Analyst · Wells Fargo
Thanks, Sean, and thanks for the question, Zhu. So this patient is a 20-year-old female with severe Stage IV Rett syndrome, okay, as I think Sean described, and the data as is because given for the protocol, we have only access to the 4-week assessment and the 6-week assessment at this point in time. This patient, as I said, is a female, who was hypotonic, had contractures, was literally either in a wheelchair with inability to really use our upper or lower extremities, was unable to sit with -- over the last decade and had decreased tone of her neck and was unable to vocalize or really socially interact as well.
Furthermore, this patient also had multiple episodes of respiratory insufficiency, where she would have spells -- apneic spells that she couldn't breathe coupled with hypoventilation. She also had significant sleep abnormalities, where she would wake up at night and essentially not have a quite night where her parents are also constantly disturbed from, I guess, the social standpoint. And frankly, also at a history of seizures, usually, especially when the Dilantin levels dropped to some therapeutic levels.
So again, to emphasize, this was a 20-year-old female with severe Stage IV Rett syndrome. Now as far as the response goes, we've already described that the patient once given our intrathecal gene therapy started showing clinical responses within 1 week post gene therapy, and then at 4 weeks, we've already shared the assessments with you. And at 6 weeks, video evidence shows that this patient was able to sit up almost 3 minutes without assistance, the back support was not necessary at that point in time. She was quite socially interactive and was attempting to vocalize, including saying the word, mama, multiple times during the day.
Furthermore, she was also moving her upper and lower extremities and moving our fingers of both of upper extremities and was also able to grasp a toy or a ball, which was observed by the PI and the parent. Furthermore, she was also able to use her lower extremities against gravity, which she has been unable to do for a very long time. And what is incredibly important is the impact that the gene therapy also had on the autonomic features, which is her ability suddenly post gene therapy to now sleep throughout the night without waking up and screaming, which also enables her parents to sleep through the night.
Furthermore, her respiratory abnormalities, which are due to autonomic irregularities, which include apneic spells or enable to breathe or holding of breadth coupled with hypoventilation episodes also decreased significantly. And furthermore, at the time of assessments done per the protocol, the seizure activity was absent for the seizure diary and EEG is reviewed by the PI at that point in time.
Now finally, as Sean said, this is one patient, dosed with the lower dose of our gene therapy, where we saw these clinical results, which we think are quite relevant and one could consider quite impactful. To compare that to trofinetide, one patient versus a fairly large randomized clinical trial of almost 200 patients, I will attempt to do that, but with the caveats. The trofinetide or Daybue Phase III trial use as their primary endpoints of approval, CGI-I and the Rett syndrome behavior questionnaire, and they used a combined endpoint. So to give you some comparison here with our 1 patient, CGI-I assessed at 4 weeks gave us a score of 2, which when talking to experts who actually designed CGI-I, told us that was quite clinically relevant.
In the trofinetide trial, 12 weeks post treatment in the Phase III when the treatment arm was compared to the placebo arm, the actual change between the 2 arms, if I recall, around [ 0.37 ], which was significant from a p-value standpoint. Then if you look at RSBQ, the behavior questionnaire, for our 1 patient, the change 4 weeks post treatment was number 23, which was quite big for that 1 patient with our gene therapy. The average change between the treatment arm to the placebo arm in the trofinetide trial from what I recall, was around 4.7%. And Sean, you may want to correct me, I think that's the number I remember, which reached a significant p-value and the broadest or the largest decrease in that trial in patients, if you look at the range, was a change of 10%.
So for us, we had 1 patient who had an improvement of 23 points, which was far larger than the average range seen within the trofinetide trial. So my hope is if we continue to see these kind of impactful clinical changes both from a purely clinical observation standpoint, which one would consider quite impactful and from these measures of CGI and RSBQ, the differences could be quite different compared to the trofinetide data set. So I'm going to stop there and hand this back over to Sean to add anything of additional color.