Rationale for Assessing Safety and Efficacy of Drug Candidates Alone and in Combination with Medical Devices: The Case Study of SpinalonTM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review is to describe the rationale and main underlying reasons for undertaking, during clinical development, the study of drug candidates used separately and/or in combination with other technologies. To ease comprehension, reference will be made to the case of SpinalonTM, a new fixed-dose combination (FDC) product composed of levodopa/carbidopa/buspirone. This drug is capable of triggering, within minutes after a single administration orally, 45 minute- episodes of basic involuntary ‘reflex’ walking in paraplegic animals. Daily administration during one month was shown to lead to increased performance over time, with health benefits onto musculoskeletal and cardiovascular systems. A double-blind, dose-escalation, randomized phase I/IIa study with 45 spinal cord-injured subjects successfully provided the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and preliminary evidence of efficacy. As an attempt to explore how efficacy may be optimized, a phase IIb study with 150 subjects was designed to compare the effects of repeated administration in different conditions (arms). Tests with a motorized treadmill, a harness for body weight support, a transdermal spinal cord stimulator and/or an exoskeleton were proposed because: 1) these devices are unlikely to alter safety but, 2) they are reasonably expected to increase spinal locomotor neuron activation, reflex walking induction, and musculoskeletal/cardiovascular benefits. This approach would normally allow the phase III study to demonstrate clearly, with fewer subjects and at lower costs, long-term benefits on health of SpinalonTM used in optimized conditions and settings. This innovative strategy in drug development may contribute to further describe the mechanisms of action as well as optimized conditions of use for patients. Adapted to the development of other products, such an approach may enable greater safety, efficacy, clinical utility and compliance to be sought for next-generation CNS drugs. Keywords: Fixed-dose combination products, combinatorial approaches, chronic spinal cord injury, phase I/IIa, phase IIb, pivotal phase III, comorbid problems, symptomatic treatments, central pattern generator, CPG, SpinalonTM, treadmill training, transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation, body weight supported treadmill training, exoskeleton, dermoskeleton, KeeogoTM, bioengineering, biomedical, devices
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".