Efficacy and Safety of Ravulizumab, a Complement C5 Inhibitor, in Adults With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Additional therapies for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are urgently needed. Immune-mediated complement activation may be involved in ALS pathogenesis as evidenced by the upregulation of terminal components; thus, complement inhibition could potentially slow progression. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the terminal complement C5 inhibitor ravulizumab in adults with ALS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial was conducted from March 30, 2020, to October 17, 2021, in 81 ALS specialty centers across 17 countries. A preplanned, unmasked, nonbinding interim futility analysis was conducted when 33% of participants had completed week 26, wherein a conditional power of less than 10% would halt the trial. A total of 478 individuals were screened, and 96 were excluded. Inclusion criteria were weight of 40 kg or more, fulfillment of the El Escorial diagnostic criteria, and a minimal prestudy Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) progression score of -0.3 points per month. Interventions: Study treatment consisted of placebo or a weight-based dose of intravenous ravulizumab every 8 weeks until week 42. Participants could continue standard-of-care treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change from baseline in ALSFRS-R score at week 50 based on the Combined Assessment of Function and Survival (CAFS). Results: A total of 382 participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive ravulizumab (n = 255; mean [SD] age, 58.6 [10.6] years; 94 female [36.9%] and 161 male [63.1%]) or placebo (n = 127; mean [SD] age, 58.0 [11.0] years; 58 female [45.7%] and 69 male [54.3%]). The interim analysis showed that the observed mean change from baseline in ALSFRS-R at week 50 was -14.67 points (SE, 0.89 points; 95% CI, -16.42 to -12.91 points) for ravulizumab and -13.33 points (SE, 1.22 points; 95% CI, -15.72 to -10.93 points) for placebo, with no significant difference between the groups (mean [SE] difference, -1.34 [1.46] points; 95% CI, -4.21 to 1.53 points). Based on these data, the trial was terminated for futility. The primary analysis at week 50 showed no significant difference in CAFS between groups (mean [SE], 5.5 [10.8] points; 95% CI, -15.7 to 26.6 points; P = .61). Overall incidence rates for treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for ravulizumab (204 participants [80.0%]) and placebo (108 participants [85.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial rapidly showed that terminal complement C5 inhibition with ravulizumab did not slow functional decline in participants with ALS and that the safety profiles of ravulizumab and placebo were similar. Highly effective, novel treatments are critically needed to slow functional decline and extend survival in patients with ALS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248465.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".