Quality of life outcomes with BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: The DEFINE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate), approved for the treatment of the relapsing forms of MS, has demonstrated clinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in the Phase III "Determination of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Fumarate in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS)" (DEFINE) and "Comparator and an Oral Fumarate in RRMS" (CONFIRM) studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairment that is associated with RRMS and to assess the effects of BG-12 on HRQoL in the DEFINE study. METHODS: Patients with RRMS were randomized to BG-12 240 mg twice (BID) or three times (TID) daily, or placebo, for 2 years. HRQoL was assessed by the Short Form-36 (SF-36), global assessment of well-being visual analog scale and the EuroQol-5D. RESULTS: In the 1237 patients from DEFINE, HRQoL impairment was greatest in patients who had higher disability scores and in those who had experienced relapse. Change in SF-36 physical component summary scores during 2 years' treatment significantly favored BG-12 over placebo (both doses: p < 0.001). We saw similar benefits in other measures of functioning and general well-being as early as Week 24. These benefits were maintained during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our results add to evidence for a negative impact of RRMS on HRQoL and they demonstrate the benefits of BG-12 on HRQoL measures, which coupled with significant clinical efficacy, further support its use as a new treatment for RRMS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".