MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762663159 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000004570

A phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trial of tadalafil for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

2017· article· en· W2762663159 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald G. Victor, H. Lee Sweeney, Richard S. Finkel, Craig M. McDonald, Barry J. Byrne, Michelle Eagle, Nathalie Goemans, Krista Vandenborne, Alberto Dubrovsky, Haluk Topaloğlu, M. Carrie Miceli, Pat Furlong, John Landry, Robert M. Elashoff, David A. Cox, Hoda Abdel‐Hamid, Susan Apkon, Richard J. Barohn, Е. Д. Белоусова, Enrico Bertini, John F. Brandsema, Claudio Bruno, W. Bryan Burnette, Russell J. Butterfield, Craig Campbell, Jose Carlo, Jong‐Hee Chae, Saleel Chandratre, Giacomo P. Comi, Anne M. Connolly, Imelda J. M. de Groot, Nicolas Deconinck, Joseph Dooley, Julien Durigneux, Erika Finanger, Loren M. Frank, Amy Harper, Ayako Hattori, Özlem Hergüner, Susan T. Iannaccone, Joanne Janas, Yuh‐Jyh Jong, Hirofumi Komaki, Nancy L. Kuntz, Wang‐Tso Lee, Edward Leung, Jean K. Mah, Katherine D. Mathews, Eugenio Mercuri, Hugh J. McMillan, Wolfgang Mueller‐Felber, Adolfo López de Munaín, Akinori Nakamura, E. Niks, Katsuhisa Ogata, Samuel Ignacio Pascual Pascual, Elena Pegoraro, Yann Péréon, Ben Renfroe, Ratna Bhavaraju Sanka, Jens Schallner, Ulrike Schara, Kathryn Selby, Isabel Illa Sendra, Laurent Servais, Edward C. Smith, Susan Sparks, R Medina Victor, Juan J. Vílchez, Matthew Wicklund, Ekkehard Wilichoswki, Brenda Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)
FundersNational Institute on AgingItalfarmacoAcceleronSanofiPTC TherapeuticsParent Project Muscular DystrophyAveXisBiogenCedars-Sinai Medical CenterPfizerSarepta TherapeuticsMuscular Dystrophy AssociationEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsDuchenne muscular dystrophyPlaceboMedicineTadalafilPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialMuscular dystrophyInternal medicineErectile dysfunctionAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Objective:</h3> To conduct a randomized trial to test the primary hypothesis that once-daily tadalafil, administered orally for 48 weeks, lessens the decline in ambulatory ability in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). <h3>Methods:</h3> Three hundred thirty-one participants with DMD 7 to 14 years of age taking glucocorticoids were randomized to tadalafil 0.3 mg·kg<sup>−1</sup>·d<sup>−1</sup>, tadalafil 0.6 mg·kg<sup>−1</sup>·d<sup>−1</sup>, or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) after 48 weeks. Secondary efficacy measures included North Star Ambulatory Assessment and timed function tests. Performance of Upper Limb (PUL) was a prespecified exploratory outcome. <h3>Results:</h3> Tadalafil had no effect on the primary outcome: 48-week declines in 6MWD were 51.0 ± 9.3 m with placebo, 64.7 ± 9.8 m with low-dose tadalafil (<i>p</i> = 0.307 vs placebo), and 59.1 ± 9.4 m with high-dose tadalafil (<i>p</i> = 0.538 vs placebo). Tadalafil also had no effect on secondary outcomes. In boys &gt;10 years of age, total PUL score and shoulder subscore declined less with low-dose tadalafil than placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of tadalafil and the DMD disease state. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Tadalafil did not lessen the decline in ambulatory ability in boys with DMD. Further studies should be considered to confirm the hypothesis-generating upper limb data and to determine whether ambulatory decline can be slowed by initiation of tadalafil before 7 years of age. <h3>Clinicaltrials.gov identifier:</h3> NCT01865084. <h3>Classification of evidence:</h3> This study provides Class I evidence that tadalafil does not slow ambulatory decline in 7- to 14-year-old boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207