MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417427033 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000214454

Lipoic Acid for Treatment of Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

2025· article· en· W4417427033 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca Spain, M. Mateo Paz Soldán, Mark S. Freedman, Pavle Repovic, Andrew Solomon, John R. Rinker, Mitchell T. Wallin, Jodie K. Haselkorn, Olaf Stüve, Robert A. Gross, Carin S. Waslo, Andrea Hildebrand, Cynthia D. Morris, Julie L. Mitchell, Aaron P. Turner, Daniel L. Schwartz, J Metz, William D. Rooney

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiochemical Acid Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisLipoic acidDimethyl fumarateClinical trialDiseaseClinical neurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A pilot trial of the antioxidant lipoic acid (LA) in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) demonstrated a reduction in the whole-brain atrophy, suggesting neuroprotection. This study determined whether LA preserved walking speed, reduced brain atrophy, and was safe in progressive MS (PMS). METHODS: This phase 2, 24-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (2018-2023) recruited a convenience sample from 10 US sites, including 5 Veterans Affairs medical centers and 1 Canadian site. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥18 years, primary or secondary PMS, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score 3.0-6.5, and relapse-independent disability worsening in the previous 2 years. Exclusion criteria were as follows: confounders of mobility outcomes, LA use in the previous 2 years, and MRI contraindications. Concurrent disease-modifying therapy (DMT) was permitted. Participants were block-randomized by site (1:1) to receive 1,200 mg daily oral LA or placebo. The sample size (n = 118) was powered to detect Timed 25-Foot Walk (primary outcome) speed differences, allowing 25% attrition. Secondary outcomes were brain atrophy, other clinical and patient-reported disabilities, and adverse events. Study visits occurred every 6 months. Laboratory monitoring was increased to every 3 months because of treatment-related proteinuria. Intention-to-treat analysis used linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Participants in the LA (54) and placebo (61) groups were 54.8% female (age 59.1 (SD 8.5) years), with a disease duration of 16.3 (SD 9.7) years and a median EDSS score of 6.0 (interquartile range 4.0-6.0), and 55.7% were on DMT. Groups were matched at baseline. LA participants discontinued from the study more often (37%) than placebo (17%). LA did not slow declines in walking speed (-0.39 ft/sec vs -0.30 ft/sec; -0.08 [-0.33 to 0.17]), nor showed differences in mobility, other clinical, or patient-reported outcomes from placebo. Whole-brain volume seemed stable in LA participants, whereas it trended toward a decrease in placebo, even after accounting for an increased total T2-weighted lesion volume that was greater in the LA group. Deep gray matter volume remained stable in LA participants and decreased in placebo participants. The LA group experienced more proteinuria and fewer suicidal ideation events than the placebo group. DISCUSSION: LA did not slow decline in walking speed or have other clinical effects different from placebo and was associated with newly described adverse events. Investigating LA mechanisms may help interpretation of volumetric imaging biomarkers in PMS. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: NCT03161028. clinicaltrials.gov/study//NCT03161028, first submission May 18, 2017; first patient enrolled August 17, 2018. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that in people with primary or secondary PMS, oral LA did not improve timed walking speed at 24 months compared with placebo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicBiochemical Acid Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207