Safety and efficacy of opicinumab in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis (AFFINITY Part 1): A randomized, controlled, phase 2 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opicinumab, a human monoclonal antibody against LINGO-1, is hypothesized to promote remyelination by enhancing the differentiation of oligodendrocyte progenitor cells. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of opicinumab as an add-on therapy to anti-inflammatory disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in participants with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). METHODS: Participants with RMS aged 18-58 years, with disease duration up to 20 years, were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous infusions of placebo or opicinumab every 4 weeks for 72 weeks. Primary endpoint was Overall Disability Response Score (ODRS) over 72 weeks. RESULTS: = 0.148) over 72 weeks, favoring opicinumab versus placebo. Numerically larger differences in favor of opicinumab were observed in participants aged ⩾ 40 years with Expanded Disability Status Scale ⩾ 3.0, with disease duration ⩾ 6 years, and receiving dimethyl fumarate as the background DMT. 85% participants in placebo group and 86% in opicinumab group had adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although the AFFINITY study did not show significant difference in mean ODRS between opicinumab and placebo groups, data from AFFINITY interpreted with the previous SYNERGY study may inform the design of future remyelination trials. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier:(NCT03222973).
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".