Prescription and acceptance of durable medical equipment in FORTITUDE-ALS, a study of <i>reldesemtiv</i> in ALS: post hoc analyses of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the possible effect of reldesemtiv, a fast skeletal muscle troponin activator, on prescription and acceptance of durable medical equipment (DME) in the FORTITUDE-ALS trial. Methods: Health economic outcome information was collected in FORTITUDE-ALS (NCT03160898); sites recorded if and when DME, specifically manual or power wheelchairs, gastrostomy tubes, noninvasive ventilators, or augmentative language devices, was prescribed by a physician and accepted by the patient (DME-PAP) during the trial. Acceptance was defined as the patient agreeing the item was needed. Cox regression analysis compared time to DME-PAP for each reldesemtiv dose with placebo. Post hoc analyses evaluated all reldesemtiv doses compared with placebo. Results: At least one DME item was prescribed and accepted by 33/114 (28.9%) of placebo patients, 19/112 (17.0%) of patients receiving reldesemtiv 150 mg bid, 24/113 (21.2%) receiving 300 mg bid, and 29/117 (24.8%) receiving 450 mg bid. The proportion of new DME-PAP was significantly lower in patients receiving reldesemtiv 150 mg bid vs placebo (17.0% vs 28.9%, p = 0.032). The hazard ratio versus placebo for accepting at least one DME item for all reldesemtiv doses combined was 0.61 (confidence interval: 0.39, 0.96, p = 0.032). 25% of placebo patients were prescribed and agreed to obtain a DME item by 84 days; this threshold was met for reldesemtiv-treated patients at 120 days. Conclusions: Results suggest ALS patients receiving reldesemtiv may have lower risk of and delayed need for DME related to impaired mobility, breathing, swallowing, or speaking; this delay is consistent with other measures indicating delay in disease progression.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".