067 Efficacy of cladribine tablets in patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: analysis of pooled double-blind data from the clarity and onward studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Patients with relapsing MS (RMS) who show an increased rate of relapse or disability worsening can be described as showing high disease activity (HDA). Treatment with cladribine tablets (CT) in the CLARITY study, and with CT added to interferon-β in the ONWARD study demonstrated efficacy vs. placebo (PBO) across a range of patients with active MS. Combining double-blind data from these studies allows assessment of the efficacy of treatment with CT 3.5 mg/kg (CT3.5; cumulative dose). The objective of this post-hoc analysis is to compare the effects of CT3.5 vs. PBO on the proportion of patients achieving no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) status in HDA subgroups identified using two sets of criteria in a pooled cohort of patients from CLARITY and ONWARD. Methods Patients from CLARITY and ONWARD were retrospectively stratified using 2 sets of HDA criteria based on relapse history, prior treatment, and MRI characteristics: high relapse activity (HRA; n=314) and HRA plus disease-activity-on-treatment (HRA +DAT; n=459). Patients treated with CT3.5 or PBO who fulfilled these criteria and achieved NEDA were compared over 2 years using odds ratios (ORs) and 95%CIs. Results In the HRA subgroup, 76.5% of CT3.5-treated patients were relapse-free, 86.7% were T1 Gd +lesion free vs. 50.7% and 35.8%, respectively, for PBO. In the HRA +DAT subgroup, 77.6% were relapse-free and 88.8% were T1 Gd +lesion free with CT3.5 vs. 53.9% and 40.8%, respectively for PBO. In the HRA and HRA +DAT subgroups, 42.7% and 41.3%, respectively, of CT3.5-treated patients were disease activity free compared with 9.7%, (OR 6.94, 95% CI 3.67;13.12, p<0.0001) and 13.7% (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.62;6.99, p<0.0001) respectively, of PBO recipients. In the overall CLARITY+ONWARD population (including non-HDA patients), the composite NEDA score also favoured CT over PBO (OR 3.95, 95% CI 2.90;5.37, p<0.0001). Conclusion Compared with placebo, treatment with CT3.5 was associated with increased odds of achieving NEDA in HDA patients.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".