Efficacy and safety of xaliproden in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: results of two phase III trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a relentlessly progressive and fatal motor neuron disease. We carried out two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, multi-national studies with xaliproden (a drug with neurotrophic effect) to assess drug efficacy and safety at two doses. Patients with clinically probable or definite ALS of more than 6 months and less than 5 years duration were randomly assigned to placebo, 1 mg or 2 mg xaliproden orally once daily as monotherapy in Study 1 (n=867); or to the same regimen with addition of riluzole 50 mg bid background therapy in Study 2 (n=1210 patients). The two primary endpoints were defined as: 1. Time to death, tracheostomy, or permanent assisted ventilation (DTP), and 2. Time to vital capacity (VC)<50% or DTP before (log-rank test) and after adjustment using a Cox proportional hazard model for prespecified prognostic factors. Secondary endpoints were rates of change of various functional measures. In Study 1, primary outcome measures did not reach statistical significance. For the 2 mg group, for time to VC<50% analysis (without DTP) a significant 30% RRR was obtained (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.46, P=0.009). In Study 2, no significant results were obtained. However, there was a trend in favour of add-on 1 mg dose xaliproden vs. placebo (RRR 15% [-6.31, ns] for time to VC<50%; RRR 12% [CI: -6.27, ns] for time to VC<50% or DTP). Adjusted RR ratios were consistently more favourable for the xaliproden groups. Tolerability was good, and dose-dependent side effects were largely associated with the serotonergic properties of xaliproden. An effect of xaliproden on functional parameters, especially VC, was noted. Although this effect did not reach statistical significance, xaliproden had a small effect on clinically noteworthy aspects of disease progression in ALS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".