ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07805057rTMS in SFNUpdated Sep 21, 2026

Magnetic Brain Stimulation in Small Fiber Neuropathy

An interventional study of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Sham in Small Fiber Neuropathy, sponsored by Maastricht University Medical Center. Recruiting at 1 site in Netherlands. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-21.

Sponsored by Maastricht University Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
124
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is a condition in which the smallest nerve fibers are damaged. This leads to severe pain and disturbances in the body's automatic functions. As a result, quality of life is often substantially reduced.

Pain is one of the main symptoms of small fiber neuropathy. Unfortunately, the effects of currently available pain medications are often disappointing and may be accompanied by unacceptable side effects. Although the smallest nerve fibers do not function properly in SFN, the brain also appears to play a role in the symptoms. Specialized brain imaging studies have shown that brain activity and certain neural connections differ between patients with SFN and healthy individuals. Therefore, the brain may also represent a suitable target for treatment.

In several chronic pain conditions, it has been demonstrated that stimulation of specific brain regions using magnetic pulses delivered through a specialized coil can reduce pain. This treatment can be administered using repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), a safe and non-invasive technique that is already available in the Netherlands for people with severe depression. The effectiveness of rTMS has never been investigated in patients with small fiber neuropathy. In addition, the pain-relieving effects of treatment are often temporary. Maintenance treatment may offer a potential solution to this problem.

Read the detailed description

Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is a peripheral neuropathy dominated by invalidating neuropathic pain, leading to a substantial decline of quality of life (QOL). Pharmacological treatment is often ineffective and causes debilitating side effects. Interestingly, while constituting a peripheral nerve condition, SFN is also characterized by changes in brain network connectivity as demonstrated by structural and functional brain imaging, making the brain a promising treatment target for SFN. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has been proven to be effective in chronic neuropathic pain treatment, by inducing changes in cortical excitability. However, the number of neuropathy patients that has been studied is limited, and induced analgesic effects were rather short-lived in duration.

The investigators hypothesize that rTMS is an effective treatment strategy for neuropathic pain in SFN compared to sham stimulation. The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of rTMS for pain alleviation in SFN patients. Secondary objectives are to assess the effect of providing repeated maintenance rTMS treatment on prolonged pain relief, and to study the effect of rTMS on pain intensity, pain qualities, other SFN-related complaints, daily functioning and QoL, as well as safety features of rTMS in SFN.

02

Conditions studied

  • Small Fiber Neuropathy

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation
  • rTMS
  • small fiber neuropathy
  • SFN
  • pain management
03

In context

Small Fiber Neuropathy

50 studies on the registry are indexed under Small Fiber Neuropathy; 12 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 124 is above the median of 31 across 31 interventional studies indexed under Small Fiber Neuropathy.

Browse Small Fiber Neuropathy studies →

Lead sponsor

Maastricht University Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 853 studies on the registry; 114 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • 18 years of age or older.
  • Skin- proven idiopathic SFN.
  • Pain intensity (maximum pain) rated ≥5 on the PI-NRS, that must have existed for at least 12 weeks before the study.
  • Written .

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Signs of large nerve fiber dysfunction (i.e., weakness, loss of vibration sense, hyporeflexia or areflexia, abnormal nerve conduction studies).
  • Identifiable underlying cause of SFN (diabetes, SCN9A/SCN10A/SCN11A mutations, hypothyroidism, vitamin B12 deficiency, monoclonal gammopathy, alcohol abuse (more than 5 IU/day), , or drugs that cause neuropathy).
  • Implanted ferromagnetic devices or other magnetic-sensitive metal implants close to the magnetic coil.
  • History of epilepsy.
  • Using pain medication that has changed in the 30 days prior to randomization.
  • Pregnancy.
  • Mentally challenged subjects unable to give independent .
  • or unstable psychiatric disorder including major depression, (history of) substance abuse and other major disorders in accordance with ,
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(5)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Biopsy and archival tissue

A biopsy takes a small piece of tissue to examine. “Archival tissue” is a sample already taken, for example at diagnosis, and kept by the hospital.

Whether a stored sample will do depends on when it was taken, how much there is and what the study needs. Ask whether the study accepts your stored sample or needs a new biopsy.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Cancer (malignancy)

Malignancy means cancer. Criteria about another or earlier malignancy ask whether you have had a different cancer, usually within a set number of years.

Some are commonly allowed, such as treated skin cancers other than melanoma and early cancers removed completely — check the exceptions this study lists.

Clinically significant

Judged by the study doctor to matter for your health or for the study. It is a doctor’s decision, so ask the study team if you are unsure whether something counts.

DSM diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association’s manual of mental health diagnoses. DSM-5 (2013, revised as DSM-5-TR in 2022) replaced DSM-IV, and some studies still name the older edition. “Meets DSM criteria for …” means diagnosed by that edition’s diagnostic criteria, usually by a clinician in an interview.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
124 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Active rTMS- induction phase

    During the first six weeks an active rTMS is given with 14 sessions in total. During the first two weeks 4 sessions a week, followed by two weeks of 2 sessions per week and two weeks of 1 session per week.

    Device: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

  • Sham comparator
    Sham rTMS- induction phase

    During the first six weeks a sham rTMS is given with 14 sessions in total. During the first two weeks 4 sessions a week, followed by two weeks of 2 sessions per week and two weeks of 1 session per week.

    Device: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Sham

  • Experimental
    Active rTMS- maintenance phase

    If participants in the active group are responders (\>1 point difference on the PI-NRS compared to baseline) after 6 weeks, they will be randomised again for six weeks maintenance (1 session per week; 6 sessions total).

    Device: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

  • Sham comparator
    Sham rTMS- maintenance phase

    If participants in the active group are responders (\>1 point difference on the PI-NRS compared to baseline) after 6 weeks, they will be randomised again for six weeks maintenance (1 session per week; 6 sessions total).

    Device: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Sham

Interventions

  • DeviceTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is arguably the most versatile noninvasive neuromodulation technique. TMS is the transcranial delivery of magnetic pulses to a brain region, inducing electric current that can depolarize neurons and induce action potentials. When multiple electromagnetic pulses are applied repetitively (rTMS) to the brain, longer lasting neuroplastic changes can be induced

  • DeviceTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Sham

    A placebo version of the active repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. The coil mimics sound and sensation of a real treatment without active stimulation.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Proportion of responders, defined as ≥ 1-point improvement in the mean weekly peak pain measured with the PI-NRS after the 6-week treatment period.

    As pain is the main future of SFN, the primary outcome measure will be based on pain intensity. This will be evaluated using the 11-point PI-NRS (0 = no pain to 10 = worst imaginable pain). The primary outcome parameter is defined as the difference in the mean weakly peak pain intensity. A responder is defined as ≥ 1-point decline on the PI-NRS at week 6 compared to baseline. The primary outcome measure is based on the IMMPACT criteria.12 The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of responders of rTMS compared to the proportion of responders of sham stimulation after the 6-week treatment period.

    Time frame: From enrolment until 6 weeks of active rTMS treatment

Secondary outcomes

  1. Proportion of responders defined as ≥ 2-point decline on the PI-NRS at week 6 compared to baseline.

    A secondary efficacy endpoint is a comparison between the percentage responders treated by rTMS and sham stimulation, when the responder is defined as ≥ 2-point decline on the PI-NRS at week 6 compared to baseline.

    Time frame: From enrolment until 6 weeks of treatment

  2. Efficacy of maintenance treatment based on pain intensity.

    Also, the efficacy of the maintenance treatment is based on pain intensity. The maintenance period is successful, if the PI-NRS at week 12 is still ≥ 1-point lower compared to baseline.

    Time frame: From enrolment until week 12

  3. Changes in daily pain intensity using the PI-NRS

    The daily pain intensity (defined as the mean pain experienced during the day: from waking up to 6 pm), the nocturnal pain intensity (6 pm until waking up), and the average of these two, using the PI-NRS.

    Time frame: From enrolment until month 6

  4. Pain changes on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)

    Pain symptoms, using the patients' global impression of change (PGIC) on a 7-point Likert scale. Subsequent scores of the PGIC are 1) worse than ever; 2) much worse; 3) little worse; 4) no change; 5) little improved; 6) much improved; 7) very much improved. 'Very much improved and 'much improved' are considered as a relevant improvement. Clinically relevant pain reduction on PGIC for pain will be defined as score 6 ('much improved') or 7 ('very much improved').

    Time frame: From enrolment until 6 months

  5. Severity of various pain qualities, using the neuropathic pain scale (NPS).

    Severity of various pain qualities, using the neuropathic pain scale (NPS). Scores are based on patient responses to questions about pain intensity. 0 indicates no pain; 10 indicates the most pain imaginable and the scale exists of 10 items.

    Time frame: From enrolment until 6 months

  6. SFN related symptoms on the SFN-SIQ (Small fiber neuropathy- symptom inventory questionairre)

    SFN-related symptoms, measured by the Rasch-transformed 13 items SFN symptoms inventory questionnaire (RT-SFN-SIQ). The questions exist of small fiber neuropathy symptoms and how frequently they occur to the patient (never; sometimes; often; always) . The raw score ranges from 0 to 39 and is converted to a centile metric ranging from 0 to 100.

    Time frame: From enrolment until month 6

  7. Activity and participation level using SFN-RODS (Small Fiber Neuropathy- Rasch-built Overall disability Outcome Scale)

    Activity and participation level, measured by the Rasch-built Overall disability Outcome Scale specifically designed for SFN (SFN-RODS). It consists of 32 items and focuses on daily activities and if a patient is able to carry that out (not able to carry out; with difficulty able to carry out; easily able to carry out). The raw score ranges from 0 to 64 and is converted to a centile metric ranging from 0 to 100.

    Time frame: From enrolment until month 6

  8. Quality of Life using EuroQoL 5D-5L

    Quality of Life, using EQ5D (EuroQol 5D). The EQ-5D-5L essentially consists of 2 pages: the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). The descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and extreme problems. The patient is asked to indicate his/her health state by ticking the box next to the most appropriate statement in each of the five dimensions. This decision results in a 1-digit number that expresses the level selected for that dimension. The digits for the five dimensions can be combined into a 5-digit number that describes the patient's health state.

    Time frame: From enrolment until month 6

  9. Adverse events

    Adverse events and vital signs will be registered for safety evaluation

    Time frame: From enrolment up until 12 weeks and 6 months

Other outcomes

  1. Concomitant medication

    Concomitant medication will be registered.

    Time frame: From enrolment until month 6

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • van Gool R, Far A, Drenthen GS, Jansen JFA, Goijen CP, Backes WH, Linden DEJ, Merkies ISJ, Faber CG, Upadhyay J, Hoeijmakers JGJ. Peripheral Pain Captured Centrally: Altered Brain Morphology on MRI in Small Fiber Neuropathy Patients With and Without an SCN9A Gene Variant. J Pain. 2024 Mar;25(3):730-741. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.10.002. Epub 2023 Nov 3. PubMed 37921732 ↗
  • Tsai YY, Wu WT, Han DS, Mezian K, Ricci V, Ozcakar L, Hsu PC, Chang KV. Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Neuropathic Pain: A Narrative Review. Life (Basel). 2023 Jan 17;13(2):258. doi: 10.3390/life13020258. PubMed 36836613 ↗
  • Tik M, Hoffmann A, Sladky R, Tomova L, Hummer A, Navarro de Lara L, Bukowski H, Pripfl J, Biswal B, Lamm C, Windischberger C. Towards understanding rTMS mechanism of action: Stimulation of the DLPFC causes network-specific increase in functional connectivity. Neuroimage. 2017 Nov 15;162:289-296. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.022. Epub 2017 Sep 12. PubMed 28912081 ↗
  • Taylor JJ, Newberger NG, Stern AP, Phillips A, Feifel D, Betensky RA, Press DZ. Seizure risk with repetitive TMS: Survey results from over a half-million treatment sessions. Brain Stimul. 2021 Jul-Aug;14(4):965-973. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2021.05.012. Epub 2021 Jun 13. PubMed 34133991 ↗
  • Rossini PM, Burke D, Chen R, Cohen LG, Daskalakis Z, Di Iorio R, Di Lazzaro V, Ferreri F, Fitzgerald PB, George MS, Hallett M, Lefaucheur JP, Langguth B, Matsumoto H, Miniussi C, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A, Paulus W, Rossi S, Rothwell JC, Siebner HR, Ugawa Y, Walsh V, Ziemann U. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Jun;126(6):1071-1107. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.001. Epub 2015 Feb 10. PubMed 25797650 ↗
  • Robinson-Papp J, George MC, Dorfman D, Simpson DM. Barriers to Chronic Pain Measurement: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives. Pain Med. 2015 Jul;16(7):1256-64. doi: 10.1111/pme.12717. Epub 2015 Feb 17. PubMed 25688752 ↗
  • Nurmikko T, MacIver K, Bresnahan R, Hird E, Nelson A, Sacco P. Motor Cortex Reorganization and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Pain-A Methodological Study. Neuromodulation. 2016 Oct;19(7):669-678. doi: 10.1111/ner.12444. Epub 2016 May 17. PubMed 27187056 ↗
  • Mori N, Hosomi K, Nishi A, Miyake A, Yamada T, Matsugi A, Jono Y, Lim C, Khoo HM, Tani N, Oshino S, Saitoh Y, Kishima H. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation focusing on patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb: a randomized sham-controlled parallel trial. Sci Rep. 2024 May 23;14(1):11811. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62018-x. PubMed 38782994 ↗
  • Molero-Chamizo A, Nitsche MA, Barroso RTA, Bailen JRA, Palomeque JCG, Rivera-Urbina GN. Non-Invasive Electric and Magnetic Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Fibromyalgia. Biomedicines. 2023 Mar 20;11(3):954. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11030954. PubMed 36979932 ↗
  • Leo RJ, Latif T. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in experimentally induced and chronic neuropathic pain: a review. J Pain. 2007 Jun;8(6):453-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.01.009. Epub 2007 Apr 16. PubMed 17434804 ↗
  • Lefaucheur JP, Nguyen JP. A practical algorithm for using rTMS to treat patients with chronic pain. Neurophysiol Clin. 2019 Sep;49(4):301-307. doi: 10.1016/j.neucli.2019.07.014. Epub 2019 Jul 30. PubMed 31375381 ↗
  • Lefaucheur JP, Aleman A, Baeken C, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Di Lazzaro V, Filipovic SR, Grefkes C, Hasan A, Hummel FC, Jaaskelainen SK, Langguth B, Leocani L, Londero A, Nardone R, Nguyen JP, Nyffeler T, Oliveira-Maia AJ, Oliviero A, Padberg F, Palm U, Paulus W, Poulet E, Quartarone A, Rachid F, Rektorova I, Rossi S, Sahlsten H, Schecklmann M, Szekely D, Ziemann U. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018). Clin Neurophysiol. 2020 Feb;131(2):474-528. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.11.002. Epub 2020 Jan 1. PubMed 31901449 ↗
  • Kool D, Hoeijmakers JG, Waxman SG, Faber CG. Small fiber neuropathy. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2024;179:181-231. doi: 10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.001. Epub 2024 Oct 29. PubMed 39580213 ↗
  • Hsieh PC, Tseng MT, Chao CC, Lin YH, Tseng WI, Liu KH, Chiang MC, Hsieh ST. Imaging signatures of altered brain responses in small-fiber neuropathy: reduced functional connectivity of the limbic system after peripheral nerve degeneration. Pain. 2015 May;156(5):904-916. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000128. PubMed 25734991 ↗
  • Hoeijmakers JG, Faber CG, Lauria G, Merkies IS, Waxman SG. Small-fibre neuropathies--advances in diagnosis, pathophysiology and management. Nat Rev Neurol. 2012 May 29;8(7):369-79. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2012.97. PubMed 22641108 ↗
  • Hebel T, Gollnitz A, Schoisswohl S, Weber FC, Abdelnaim M, Wetter TC, Rupprecht R, Langguth B, Schecklmann M. A direct comparison of neuronavigated and non-neuronavigated intermittent theta burst stimulation in the treatment of depression. Brain Stimul. 2021 Mar-Apr;14(2):335-343. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2021.01.013. Epub 2021 Jan 22. PubMed 33493624 ↗
  • Garcia-Larrea L, Peyron R, Mertens P, Gregoire MC, Lavenne F, Le Bars D, Convers P, Mauguiere F, Sindou M, Laurent B. Electrical stimulation of motor cortex for pain control: a combined PET-scan and electrophysiological study. Pain. 1999 Nov;83(2):259-73. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00114-1. PubMed 10534598 ↗
  • Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, McNicol E, Baron R, Dworkin RH, Gilron I, Haanpaa M, Hansson P, Jensen TS, Kamerman PR, Lund K, Moore A, Raja SN, Rice AS, Rowbotham M, Sena E, Siddall P, Smith BH, Wallace M. Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb;14(2):162-73. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70251-0. Epub 2015 Jan 7. PubMed 25575710 ↗
  • Eijkenboom I, Sopacua M, Otten ABC, Gerrits MM, Hoeijmakers JGJ, Waxman SG, Lombardi R, Lauria G, Merkies ISJ, Smeets HJM, Faber CG, Vanoevelen JM; PROPANE Study Group. Expression of pathogenic SCN9A mutations in the zebrafish: A model to study small-fiber neuropathy. Exp Neurol. 2019 Jan;311:257-264. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2018.10.008. Epub 2018 Oct 11. PubMed 30316835 ↗
  • Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Kerns RD, Ader DN, Brandenburg N, Burke LB, Cella D, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dimitrova R, Dionne R, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kehlet H, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick C, McDermott MP, McQuay HJ, Patel S, Porter L, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Revicki DA, Rothman M, Schmader KE, Stacey BR, Stauffer JW, von Stein T, White RE, Witter J, Zavisic S. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008 Feb;9(2):105-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005. Epub 2007 Dec 11. PubMed 18055266 ↗
  • de Greef BTA, Hoeijmakers JGJ, Geerts M, Oakes M, Church TJE, Waxman SG, Dib-Hajj SD, Faber CG, Merkies ISJ. Lacosamide in patients with Nav1.7 mutations-related small fibre neuropathy: a randomized controlled trial. Brain. 2019 Feb 1;142(2):263-275. doi: 10.1093/brain/awy329. PubMed 30649227 ↗
  • Carneiro BD, Tavares I. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Treat Neuropathic Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis. Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Feb 28;12(5):555. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12050555. PubMed 38470666 ↗
  • Baron R, Baron Y, Disbrow E, Roberts TP. Brain processing of capsaicin-induced secondary hyperalgesia: a functional MRI study. Neurology. 1999 Aug 11;53(3):548-57. doi: 10.1212/wnl.53.3.548. PubMed 10449119 ↗
  • Attal N, Poindessous-Jazat F, De Chauvigny E, Quesada C, Mhalla A, Ayache SS, Fermanian C, Nizard J, Peyron R, Lefaucheur JP, Bouhassira D. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial. Brain. 2021 Dec 16;144(11):3328-3339. doi: 10.1093/brain/awab208. PubMed 34196698 ↗
  • Bakkers M, Faber CG, Hoeijmakers JG, Lauria G, Merkies IS. Small fibers, large impact: quality of life in small-fiber neuropathy. Muscle Nerve. 2014 Mar;49(3):329-36. doi: 10.1002/mus.23910. Epub 2013 Jun 28. PubMed 23716362 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Start is estimated for Sep 2026; primary completion for Sep 2028, 24 months later.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Sep 1, 2026
First posted
Sep 4, 2026
StartEst.
Sep 2026
Primary completionEst.
Sep 2028
CompletionEst.
Sep 2028
Last update
Sep 21, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 21, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07805057
Collaborators
Princess Beatrix Muscle Foundation
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 4, 2026
Start date
Sep 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Sep 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Sep 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 21, 2026

Study contacts

Eva C.M. Gruintjes, MD
Contact
eva.gruintjes@mumc.nl
+31 433876584
Janneke G.J. Hoeijmakers, MD, PhD
Contact
j.hoeijmakers@mumc.nl
+31 433877059
Janneke G.J. Hoeijmakers, MD, PhD
principal investigator · Maastricht University Medical Centre +

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion