A randomized, placebo‐controlled trial of AFQ056 for the treatment of chorea in Huntington's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the hypothesis that AFQ056 (mavoglurant), a selective metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonist, reduces chorea in Huntington's disease (HD). METHODS: This 32-day randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, proof-of-concept study investigated AFQ056 (25-150 mg [incremental doses], twice-daily) versus placebo in patients with HD. Primary efficacy assessments were the chorea-sum score and orientation index (nondominant hand) from the quantitative motor (Q-Motor) grasping task at day 28. Key secondary efficacy assessments included finger-tapping in the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale-Total Motor Score and Q-Motor measures. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 42 patients were randomized. At day 28, no improvement was observed on the primary efficacy assessments (P > 0.10) with AFQ056 versus placebo. The Q-Motor speeded-tapping interonset interval variability was reduced with AFQ056 versus placebo for the nondominant hand (P = 0.01). The incidence of adverse events was 66.7% with AFQ056 and 57.1% with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: AFQ056 did not reduce choreatic movements in HD, but was well tolerated. The clinical relevance of the Q-Motor findings (speeded-tapping) are unknown and may warrant further investigation.
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".