P.107 Early and sustained response over time with zilucoplan in generalised Myasthenia Gravis: 120-week post hoc analysis of RAISE-XT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: RAISE-XT (NCT04225871; Phase 3 study) showed clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in myasthenia gravis (MG)-specific outcomes with zilucoplan, a macrocyclic peptide complement component 5 inhibitor, in patients with acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive generalised MG. Methods: Adults self-administered once-daily subcutaneous zilucoplan 0.3mg/kg. This post hoc analysis assessed durability of response to Week 120 in MG-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative MG (QMG) responders at Week 1 of two double-blind studies (NCT03315130, NCT04115293). Responder definitions: improvements of ≥3-points (MG-ADL) or ≥5-points (QMG) (interim data cut: 11 November 2023). Results: 93 patients were randomised to zilucoplan 0.3mg/kg in the double-blind studies; 43.0% (n=40/93) and 33.3% (n=31/93) were MG-ADL and QMG responders, respectively, at Week 1. Week 1 responders spent a median #of 98.9% (5.8–99.2) and 99.0% (2.5–99.2) time in response up to Week 120 for MG-ADL and QMG. Week 1 non-responders spent# a median #of 84.6% (0.0–98.3) and 66.7% (0.0–98.9) time in response up to Week 120 for MG-ADL and QMG, with most responding later in the study. Conclusions: Among early (Week 1) zilucoplan responders, time in response remained high (99%) up to Week 120. These data demonstrate rapid and sustained efficacy with long-term zilucoplan treatment.#
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".