Study protocol of RESCUE-ALS: A Phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in early symptomatic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients to assess bioenergetic catalysis with CNM-Au8 as a mechanism to slow disease progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an adult-onset, progressive and universally fatal neurodegenerative disorder. In Europe, Australia and Canada, riluzole is the only approved therapeutic agent for the treatment of ALS, while in the USA, riluzole and edaravone have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . Neither riluzole nor edaravone treatment has resulted in substantial disease-modifying effects. There is, therefore, an urgent need for drugs that result in safe and effective treatment. Here, we present the design and rationale for the phase 2 RESCUE-ALS study, investigating the novel nanocatalytic drug, CNM-Au8, as a therapeutic intervention that enhances the metabolic and energetic capacity of motor neurones. CNM-Au8 is an aqueous suspension of clean-surfaced, faceted gold nanocrystals that have extraordinary catalytic capabilities, that enhance efficiencies of key metabolic reactions, while simultaneously reducing levels of reactive oxygen species. This trial utilises a novel design by employing motor unit number index (MUNIX), measured by electromyography, as a quantitative measure of lower motor neurone loss and as an early marker of ALS disease progression. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of CNM-Au8 in ALS patients. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to either receive 30 mg of CNM-Au8 once daily or matching placebo over a 36-week double-blind treatment period. Efficacy will be assessed as the change in motor neurone loss as measured by electromyography (eg, MUNIX, the primary endpoint; and secondary endpoints including MScanFit, motor unit size index, Split Hand Index, Neurophysiology Index). Exploratory endpoints include standard clinical and quality of life assessments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: RESCUE-ALS was approved by the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (Ethics Ref: 2019/ETH12107). Results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04098406.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".