MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety and Efficacy of Siponimod (BAF312) in Patients with Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Results from Dose-blinded Extension Phase of BOLD Study (P3.151)

2014· article· en· W1556804824 on OpenAlexaff
Ludwig Kappos, Olaf Stüve, Hans Hartung, Mark Freedman, David Li, Bernhard Hemmer, Xavier Montalbán, Tjalf Ziemssen, Brian Hunter, Sophie Arnould, Erik Wallström, Krzysztof Selmaj

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelapsing remittingMedicineMultiple sclerosisPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To present siponimod (BAF312) safety and efficacy results in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis during the dose-blinded phase (up to 24 months) of BOLD extension study. BACKGROUND: In the core BOLD study, siponimod showed dose-dependent reduction in MRI-assessed inflammatory lesion activity and annualized relapse rate (ARR) with a manageable safety and tolerability profile, particularly at low doses. DESIGN/METHODS: Patients either continued on siponimod doses assigned in the core phase or were re-randomized from placebo to siponimod 10 (n=33), 2 (n=29), 1.25 (n=43), 0.5 (n=29) and 0.25 (n=50) mg. Dose titration from 0.25 mg over the first 10 days was implemented to reduce the risk of bradycardia during siponimod treatment initiation. MRI was performed at extension baseline and every 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: Of the 184 patients who entered the extension study, 159 completed the dose-blinded phase (overall average exposure, 655 days). The following data pertain to patients taking 10, 2, 1.25, 0.5 and 0.25mg doses, respectively. Mean number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions by visit: 0.2, 0.5, 0.1, 0.6, 0.7 (Month 12) and 0.0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1.3 (Months 24) versus 1.7, 1.4, 1.8, 3.1, 1.3 (core baseline). Mean number of new/enlarged T2 lesions: 0.0, 0.5, 0.3, 2.1, 2.9 (Month 24) versus 0.5, 0.6, 0.3, 1.6, 1.7 (Month 12). Annualized confirmed relapse rate (95% CI) remained low: 0.22 (0.12, 0.40), 0.20 (0.10, 0.38), 0.14 (0.08, 0.26), 0.33 (0.19, 0.56), and 0.33 (0.21, 0.50). Seven patients withdrew from study drug due to adverse events (AE). Most common AEs (蠅12% in any dose group) were nasopharyngitis, headache, lymphopenia, decreased lymphocyte count, upper respiratory tract infection, increased alanine aminotransferase, pharyngitis, sinusitis, insomnia and depression. Serious AEs were reported in 9 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Siponimod showed sustained efficacy on MRI and clinical measures with highest effects in the 1.25mg, 2mg, and 10mg dose groups, in line with dose-finding results in the core study. No new safety signals emerged. Study Supported by: Novartis Pharma AG

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207