Oral edaravone demonstrated a favorable safety profile in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis after 48 weeks of treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: An intravenous (IV) formulation of edaravone has been shown to slow the rate of physical functional decline in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). An oral suspension formulation of edaravone was recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with ALS. This study assessed the safety and tolerability of oral edaravone. METHODS: This global, open-label, phase 3 study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of oral edaravone in adults with ALS who had a baseline forced vital capacity ≥70% of predicted and disease duration ≤3 y. The primary safety analysis was assessed at weeks 24 and 48. Patients received a 105-mg dose of oral edaravone in treatment cycles replicating the dosing of IV edaravone. RESULTS: The study enrolled 185 patients (64.3% male; mean age, 59.9 y; mean disease duration, 1.56 y). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at week 48 were fall (22.2%), muscular weakness (21.1%) and constipation (17.8%). Serious TEAEs were reported by 25.9% of patients; the most common were worsening ALS symptoms, dysphagia, dyspnea, and respiratory failure. Twelve TEAEs leading to death were reported. Forty-six (24.9%) patients reported TEAEs that were considered related to study drug; the most common were fatigue, dizziness, headache, and constipation. Sixteen (8.6%) patients discontinued study drug due to TEAEs. No serious TEAEs were related to study drug. DISCUSSION: This study indicated that oral edaravone was well tolerated during 48 wk of treatment, with no new safety concerns identified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".