Our objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of tirasemtiv over 12 weeks and its effect on the revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) and other secondary functional measures. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled adults with ALS and slow vital capacity (SVC)> 50% from 73 centers in eight countries. Patients who tolerated open-label tirasemtiv 125 mg b.i.d. for one week were randomized to double-blind treatment either to placebo or tirasemtiv, escalating to a maximum tolerated dose up to 250 mg b.i.d. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in ALSFRS-R; secondary endpoints included SVC, maximum voluntary ventilation, sniff nasal inspiratory pressure, isometric muscle strength, and sub-maximum handgrip fatigue. Of 711 patients enrolled, 596 were randomized and received at least one dose of double-blind treatment. The primary endpoint showed no treatment effect (tirasemtiv: -2.98 ± 0.28, placebo: -2.40 ± 0.25, p = 0.114); however, SVC and muscle strength declined significantly more slowly on tirasemtiv (95% CI p = 0.0006, p = 0.0158, respectively). Dropouts and serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the tirasemtiv group. In conclusion, this was a negative study with respect to the primary endpoint; however, the effects on SVC and muscle strength suggest a potentially important effect of tirasemtiv warranting further evaluation over a longer period in ALS.

AP was not superior to placebo in reducing the number of weekly heartburn events over 4 weeks in the primary analysis of the entire study population. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggest that response to PPI treatment before the study was associated with a response to AP treatment.

IntroductionIn small trials, randomization can fail, leading to differences in patient characteristics across treatment arms, a risk that can be reduced by stratifying using key confounders. In ALS trials, riluzole use (RU) and bulbar onset (BO) have been used for stratification. We hypothesized that randomization could be improved by using a multifactorial prognostic score of predicted survival as a single stratifier.MethodsWe defined a randomization failure as a significant difference between treatment arms on a characteristic. We compared randomization failure rates when stratifying for RU and BO (“traditional stratification”) to failure rates when stratifying for predicted survival using a predictive algorithm. We simulated virtual trials using the PRO‐ACT database without application of a treatment effect to assess balance between cohorts. We performed 100 randomizations using each stratification method – traditional and algorithmic. We applied these stratification schemes to a randomization simulation with a treatment effect using survival as the endpoint and evaluated sample size and power.ResultsStratification by predicted survival met with fewer failures than traditional stratification. Stratifying predicted survival into tertiles performed best. Stratification by predicted survival was validated with an external dataset, the placebo arm from the BENEFIT‐ALS trial. Importantly, we demonstrated a substantial decrease in sample size required to reach statistical power.ConclusionsStratifying randomization based on predicted survival using a machine learning algorithm is more likely to maintain balance between trial arms than traditional stratification methods. The methodology described here can translate to smaller, more efficient clinical trials for numerous neurological diseases.

VITALITY-ALS was a phase III trial designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of tirasemtiv in ALS.

We developed ALS-VC, a GBM model trained with the PRO-ACT ALS dataset that provides vital capacity predictions generalizable to external datasets. The ALS-VC model could be helpful in advising and counseling patients, and, in clinical trials, it could be used to generate virtual control arms against which observed outcomes could be compared, or used to stratify patients into slowly, average, and rapidly progressing subgroups.

Objective: To determine amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)-associated costs incurred by patients covered by Medicare and/ or commercial insurance before, during and after diagnosis and provide cost details. Methods: Costs were calculated from the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5% sample claims data from Parts A and B from 2009, 2010 and 2011 for ALS Medicare patients aged 70 years (monthly costs) and 65 years (costs associated with disability milestones). Commercial insurance patients aged 18-63 years were selected based on the data provided in the Coordination of Benefits field from Truven MarketScan Õ in 2008-2010. Results: Monthly costs increased nine months before diagnosis, peaked during the index month (Medicare: $10,398; commercial: $9354) and decreased but remained high post-index. Costs generally shifted from outpatient to inpatient and private nursing after diagnosis; prescriptions and durable medical equipment costs were much higher for commercial patients post-diagnosis. Patients appeared to progress to disability milestones more rapidly as their disease progressed in severity (14.4 months to non-invasive ventilation [NIV] vs. 16.6 months to hospice), and their costs increased accordingly (NIV: $58,973 vs. hospice: $76,179). Conclusions: For newly diagnosed ALS patients in the U.S., medical costs are substantial and increase rapidly and substantially with each disability milestone.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbaclofen placarbil (AP) in patients with spasticity secondary to spinal cord injury (SCI). Setting: United States and Canada. Methods: Patients received extended-release AP tablets 10, 20 or 30 mg every 12 h in one of two AP/placebo sequences, with 26 days of each treatment. The primary analysis compared Ashworth scale assessments of muscle tone between AP and placebo for the muscle group with maximum baseline Ashworth score. Secondary endpoints included a patient-rated Severity of Spasticity Scale. Results: In the primary analysis, AP significantly improved Ashworth scores compared with placebo over the dosing interval: least-squares mean reduction versus placebo was 0.60 for AP 20 mg (P ¼ 0.0059) and 0.88 for AP 30 mg (P ¼ 0.0007). The difference was significant for the pre-morning dose time point, 12 h after the prior evening dose, indicating that efficacy was maintained throughout the dosing interval. Treatment differences for AP 10 mg versus placebo were not significant. Severity of Spasticity ratings were significantly reduced for the combined 20/30-mg group versus placebo (P ¼ 0.018). No statistically significant differences between AP and placebo were observed for muscle strength. AP-related AEs were generally mild to moderate in intensity, and none led to early withdrawal or were serious. Conclusion: AP was well tolerated at all investigated dosages and, when administered at doses of 20 or 30 mg twice daily, was efficacious in reducing spasticity due to SCI.

No abstract