A phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trial of tadalafil for Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: 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). Methods: Three hundred thirty-one participants with DMD 7 to 14 years of age taking glucocorticoids were randomized to tadalafil 0.3 mg·kg−1·d−1, tadalafil 0.6 mg·kg−1·d−1, 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. Results: 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 (p = 0.307 vs placebo), and 59.1 ± 9.4 m with high-dose tadalafil (p = 0.538 vs placebo). Tadalafil also had no effect on secondary outcomes. In boys >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. Conclusions: 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. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01865084. Classification of evidence: 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".