Diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: Final safety and efficacy results from the phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is approved for adults with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Europe and for relapsing forms of MS in the United States. DRF and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) yield bioequivalent exposure of the active metabolite monomethyl fumarate. Prior studies indicated fewer gastrointestinal (GI)-related adverse events (AEs) with DRF compared with DMF. Objective: To report final outcomes from EVOLVE-MS-1. Methods: EVOLVE-MS-1 was an open-label, 96-week, phase 3 study assessing DRF safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients with RRMS. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability; efficacy endpoints were exploratory. Results: Overall, 75.7% (800/1057) of patients completed the study; median exposure was 1.8 (range: 0.0–2.0) years. AEs occurred in 938 (88.7%) patients, mostly of mild (28.9%) or moderate (50.3%) severity. DRF was discontinued due to AEs in 85 (8.0%) patients, with < 2% discontinuing due to GI or flushing/flushing-related AEs. At Week 96, mean number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions was significantly reduced from baseline (72.7%; p < 0.0001); adjusted annualized relapse rate was 0.13 (95% confidence interval: 0.11–0.15). Conclusion: DRF was generally well tolerated over 2 years, with few discontinuations due to AEs; radiological measures indicated decreased disease activity from baseline. These outcomes support DRF as a treatment option in patients with RRMS.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".