Two phase 3, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of fampridine-SR for treatment of spasticity in chronic spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fampridine sustained-release tablets (fampridine-SR) 25 mg twice daily for moderate-to-severe spasticity in patients with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: United States and Canada. METHODS: Patients with incomplete chronic SCI were randomized to twice daily fampridine-SR 25 mg or placebo, with a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in, a 2-week titration, 12 weeks of stable dosing, 2 weeks of downward titration and 2 weeks of untreated follow-up. Co-primary end points were the change from baseline, averaged over the double-blind treatment period, for Ashworth score (bilateral knee flexors and extensors) and a 7-point Subject Global Impression of treatment (SGI; 1, terrible; 7, delighted). Secondary end points were: Penn Spasm Frequency Scale; the motor/sensory score from the International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI; Clinician's Global Impression of Change of neurological status; and the International Index of Erectile Function (men) or the Female Sexual Function Index (women). RESULTS: The populations were 212 and 203 patients in the two studies, respectively. Changes from baseline in Ashworth score were -0.15 (placebo) and -0.19 (fampridine-SR) in the first study, and -0.16 (placebo) and -0.28 (fampridine-SR) in the second study. The between-treatment difference was not significant for either the Ashworth score or the SGI and, with few exceptions, neither were the secondary end points. Fampridine-SR was generally well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs were reported with similar frequency between treatments. CONCLUSION: Fampridine-SR was well tolerated. No significant differences were observed between treatment groups for the primary end points of Ashworth score and SGI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".