Efficacy and Safety of Once Daily Dosing vs. Approved On/Off Dosing of Edaravone Oral Suspension Up to 48 Weeks in Patients With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Study <scp>MT</scp>‐1186‐<scp>A02</scp>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: An On/Off dosing regimen of intravenous (IV) edaravone and edaravone oral suspension is approved in the US for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Placebo-controlled clinical trials showed IV edaravone slows the rate of physical functional decline. This study evaluated whether investigational daily dosing displayed superior efficacy vs. approved on/off dosing of edaravone oral suspension, and assessed safety and tolerability, over 48 weeks in patients with ALS. METHODS: Study MT-1186-A02 (NCT04569084) was a multicenter, phase 3b, double-blind, parallel group, superiority study that randomized patients to edaravone oral suspension (105-mg dose) administered Once Daily or the same edaravone oral suspension dose administered according to the approved On/Off regimen including placebo to mimic daily drug dosing. Patients had definite or probable ALS, baseline forced vital capacity ≥ 70%, and baseline disease duration ≤ 2 years. The primary endpoint was a combined assessment of function and survival (CAFS) at week 48, which included change in ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) and time to death. RESULTS: CAFS at week 48 indicated Once Daily dosing did not show a statistically significant difference vs. approved on/off dosing (p = 0.777). Both dosing regimens provided comparable change from baseline ALSFRS-R total score to week 48 (least squares mean difference: 0.27 [95% CI -1.43 to 1.97]). Edaravone oral suspension was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified in either group. DISCUSSION: Daily edaravone oral suspension did not show superiority and had equivalent safety and tolerability vs. the approved On/Off regimen, reinforcing the appropriateness of the approved dosing regimen.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".