Phase III dose‐comparison study of glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of glatiramer acetate (GA) 40 mg compared to a 20mg dose. METHODS: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) with ≥ 1 documented relapse in 12 months prior to screening, or ≥ 2 documented relapses in 24 months prior to screening, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score 0 to 5.5 were enrolled. Patients were evaluated at screening, baseline, and at months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Primary endpoint was rate of confirmed relapses observed during 12-month study. Analysis was by intent-to-treat. RESULTS: A total of 1,155 patients randomized to GA 20 mg (n = 586) or 40 mg (n = 569). The groups were well-matched at baseline on demographic, clinical, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics. The primary endpoint was similar in both groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.31; p = 0.486) with mean annualized relapse rates (ARRs) of 0.33 for the 20 mg group, 0.35 for the 40 mg group, and 0.27 for patients from both groups who completed the entire 1-year treatment. A total of 77% of patients remained relapse-free in both groups. Both groups showed a reduction in mean number of gadolinium-enhancing and new T2 lesions over time with trend for faster reduction in the first trimester with the 40 mg dose compared with 20 mg dose. Both doses were well-tolerated with a safety profile similar to that observed in previous studies of 20 mg GA. INTERPRETATION: In relapsing-remitting MS patients, both the currently-approved GA 20 mg and 40 mg doses were safe and well-tolerated, with no gain in efficacy for the higher dose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".