COURAGE-ALS: a randomized, double-blind phase 3 study designed to improve participant experience and increase the probability of success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the target population and optimize the study design of the phase 3 clinical trial evaluating reldesemtiv in participants with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).Methods: We evaluated the phase 2 study of reldesemtiv, FORTITUDE-ALS, to inform eligibility criteria and design features that would increase trial efficiency and reduce participant burden of the phase 3 trial.Results: In FORTITUDE-ALS, the effect of reldesemtiv was particularly evident among participants in the intermediate- and fast-progressing tertiles for pre-study disease progression. These participants most often had symptom onset ≤24 months and an ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score ≤44 at baseline. Compared with the overall FORTITUDE-ALS population, the subgroup meeting these criteria declined by fewer ALSFRS-R points at 12 weeks (difference of least-squares mean [SE] versus placebo 1.84 [0.49] and 0.87 [0.35] for the overall population). These inclusion criteria will be used for the phase 3 clinical trial, COURAGE-ALS, in which the primary outcome is the change in ALSFRS-R total score at week 24. We also measure durable medical equipment use and evaluate strength in muscles expected to change rapidly. To reduce participant burden, study visits are often remote, and strength evaluation is simplified to reduce time and effort.Conclusions: In COURAGE-ALS, the phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate reldesemtiv, the sensitivity of detecting a potential treatment effect may be increased by defining eligibility criteria that limit the proportion of participants who have slower disease progression. Implementing remote visits and simplifying strength measurements will reduce both site and participant burden.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03160898 (FORTITUDE-ALS) and NCT04944784 (COURAGE-ALS)
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".