136 NOVA primary results randomised controlled study of natalizumab Q6W versus continued Q4W treatment for MS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Natalizumab every-6-week (Q6W) dosing is associated with lower progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy risk than every-4-week dosing (Q4W) in retrospective analyses. NOVA is the first randomised trial to assess Q6W efficacy. Objective Evaluate natalizumab Q6W efficacy in patients previously treated with natalizumab Q4W for ≥12 months compared with continuation of Q4W over 72 weeks. Methods NOVA is a randomised, controlled, open-label, rater-blinded phase 3b trial. Included patients were treated with natalizumab Q4W without relapse for ≥12 months. Patients were randomised 1:1 to Q4W (n=248) or Q6W (n=251). The primary endpoint was new/newly enlarging T2 (N/NET2) lesions. Secondary endpoints included clinical and safety outcomes. Results Proportions of patients with N/NET2 lesions were low in both arms (Q4W:4.1%; Q6W:4.3%). Differ- ences in mean N/NET2 lesions for Q4W and Q6W (primary estimand: 0.05 vs 0.20 [P=0.0755]; secondary estimand: 0.06 vs 0.31 [P=0.0437]) were driven by two Q6W patients with extreme (≥25) values. Secondary outcomes were similar for Q4W and Q6W. Conclusions Overall, NOVA data suggest most patients stable on natalizumab Q4W can switch to Q6W without clinically meaningful loss of efficacy. Support: Biogen. Disclosures on poster.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".