Reported trial results for Transverse Myelitis

18 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

• NCT04614454 · results posted 30 April 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04614454) enrolled 46 people in total — 23 in the experimental arm and 23 in a sham (inactive/comparison) arm. The trial was measuring changes in pain levels and quality of life over four weeks, comparing those who received the experimental treatment to those who received a sham version of it. Of those who started, 19 people in the experimental arm and 21 in the sham arm completed the trial. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was change in pain, using a numbered scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). After four weeks, the experimental arm reported an average reduction of 2.2 points on this scale, while the sham arm reported an average reduction of 1.3 points. For "worst pain" experienced, the reported data shows the experimental arm had an average reduction of 1.0 points, while the sham arm had an average reduction of 1.4 points. Regarding quality of life, participants filled out a survey scored from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health); the experimental arm showed an average improvement of 14.7 points, compared to 10.2 points in the sham arm. Four participants withdrew from the experimental arm and two from the sham arm due to poor compliance. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05269667 · results posted 22 January 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05269667) enrolled 4 participants in a single group, described as people with a condition called NMOSD (a rare disease affecting the nerves of the eyes and spinal cord) who had not responded well enough to a previous treatment called rituximab. The trial was measuring how participants responded to a medicine called satralizumab, focusing on whether they experienced relapses — defined as new or worsening neurological symptoms linked to their condition. Notably, none of the 4 participants completed the study; all 4 were listed as having not completed it, though the reasons for this were not detailed in the reported data. The reported data shows that across the primary outcome measures, 100% of participants were recorded as relapse-free during their time in the study. The reported annualised relapse rate — a figure representing the average number of relapses per person per year — was recorded as 0. Because no relapses occurred, the "time to first relapse" measure was recorded as not applicable. Additionally, the reported data shows that 0% of participants were hospitalised due to a relapse, 0% used corticosteroids (a type of anti-inflammatory medicine) because of a relapse, and 0% required rescue therapy (such as intravenous medicines or plasma exchange) due to a relapse. Given that only 4 participants were enrolled and none completed the study, these figures represent a very small and incomplete dataset. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04660539 · results posted 27 December 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04660539) was an extension study involving 166 people who had previously taken part in earlier trials of a medicine called satralizumab, used in the treatment of a rare neurological condition called neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). Of the 166 who started, 106 completed the study and 60 did not finish. The study was primarily measuring the number of participants who experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events) and more serious unwanted medical events (serious adverse events) over the course of the trial. It also tracked a number of secondary measures, including relapses — episodes where neurological symptoms returned or worsened. The reported data shows that out of 166 participants, 162 experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence of any kind), and 44 experienced a serious adverse event (a more significant medical event such as one requiring hospitalisation). For a category of special safety-related events — including potential liver injury or infections transmitted by the study drug — the reported number was zero for both categories. Regarding serious infections, 19 participants were reported to have experienced one, and 8 participants were reported to have experienced a liver-related concern (hepatotoxicity). On the question of suicidal thoughts or behaviours, assessed using a structured interview tool, small numbers of participants recorded responses across various categories, with figures ranging from 1 to 7 participants depending on the specific category measured. The reported data also shows that, looking at relapses over the long term, approximately 67% of participants were reported to be relapse-free up to around week 456 (roughly eight and a half years from the start of the parent studies), based on a statistical estimation method. The median time to a first relapse was not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04155424 · results posted 25 September 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04155424) enrolled 5 participants, all of whom received the study drug eculizumab. All 5 participants took part in both the induction and maintenance phases of the treatment period. Notably, none of the 5 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study — all 5 were listed under "not completed," though the reasons for this are not detailed in the reported data. The trial was primarily measuring how often relapses (flare-ups of the condition) occurred during the study compared to the two years before it began, as well as how long it took for a first relapse to occur while on the drug. The reported data shows that the average number of relapses per person per year decreased by 3.01 compared to the period before the trial. For the second primary measure — the time it took for participants to have their first relapse during the trial — no numerical results were reported in the data. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows an average change of −0.75 in disability scores (on a scale from 0 to 10, where lower means less disability), and no average change (0.0) in a walking ability score. A quality-of-life score for children showed an average change of −5.01 (on a 0–100 scale, where higher means better quality of life). For eyesight, the reported data shows that 3 participants had a shift in visual acuity in one category and 1 participant had a shift in another category, though further detail on what those shifts represented is not provided in the data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04201262 · results posted 9 August 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04201262) enrolled 105 adults in total — 58 received a medicine called ravulizumab and 47 received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment). The trial was measuring whether ravulizumab could reduce relapses (sudden worsening episodes) in people with a rare nerve condition called NMOSD (neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder). The main treatment period was followed by a longer-term extension phase, which only the ravulizumab group continued into. The reported data shows that, during the main treatment period, zero out of 58 participants in the ravulizumab group experienced a confirmed relapse, compared with 20 out of 47 participants in the placebo group. For the relapse rate measure (the average number of relapses per year across all participants), the ravulizumab group recorded 0.000 relapses per year and the placebo group recorded 0.350 relapses per year. On a walking ability scale (scored 0–9, where lower is better), 4 participants in each group showed worsening, while 52 in the ravulizumab group and 32 in the placebo group were reported as stable. On a broader disability scale, 6 ravulizumab participants and 11 placebo participants showed clinically meaningful worsening. For self-reported quality of life, small numerical differences between the two groups were recorded, though what those differences mean in everyday terms was not further explained in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02865018 · results posted 7 June 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02865018) involved 16 people who were given cetirizine (an antihistamine medication). One participant did not complete the study, leaving 15 who finished. The trial was measuring the rate of relapses (episodes of worsening symptoms) in people with multiple sclerosis, before and during treatment with cetirizine. It also measured sleepiness, disability levels, and a blood marker related to a type of immune cell called an eosinophil. The reported data shows that the annualised relapse rate — that is, the estimated number of relapses per year — was 0.4 before the study and 0.1 during the study. For sleepiness, measured using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (a questionnaire scored from 0 to 24, where higher numbers suggest more sleepiness), the reported scores were 6.5 and 6.9 at two points during the study. For disability, measured using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (scored from 0 to 10, where higher scores indicate greater disability), the reported scores were 3.9 and 3.2 at two time points. A blood marker called eotaxin, linked to immune cell activity, was reported at 19.25 pg/mL, though it is not clear from the data whether this was measured at one point or represents an average — no comparison figure was reported for this measure. It is worth noting that this was a small study with only 16 participants and no comparison group, which the data does not address further. The reported data shows numbers from a single group only, so no direct comparison between cetirizine and a placebo or other treatment was reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02003144 · results posted 23 August 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02003144) enrolled 119 participants in total — 41 in the "Placebo then Eculizumab" group and 78 in the "Eculizumab throughout" group. The trial was measuring a range of things, including how many participants experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events), any thoughts or behaviours related to suicide (using a standardised questionnaire), and how often participants had relapses — that is, new or worsening neurological symptoms lasting more than 24 hours. The trial had two phases: a blinded phase (where some participants received a dummy treatment) and an open-label phase (where everyone received the active treatment). All 119 participants completed the first phase, while 32 and 64 respectively completed the second phase. The reported data shows that during the study, all 41 participants in the Placebo/Eculizumab group and 70 out of 78 in the Eculizumab/Eculizumab group experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence of any kind). Serious adverse events were reported in 14 participants in the Placebo/Eculizumab group and 26 in the Eculizumab/Eculizumab group. Regarding relapses, 5 participants in the Placebo/Eculizumab group and 8 in the Eculizumab/Eculizumab group had at least one relapse during the trial. The reported relapse rate (calculated as relapses per year of time spent in the study) was 0.128 for the Placebo/Eculizumab group and 0.061 for the Eculizumab/Eculizumab group. On the suicide-related thoughts and behaviours questionnaire, 4 participants in the Placebo/Eculizumab group and 5 in the Eculizumab/Eculizumab group recorded at least one relevant response. The reported data also shows changes in two disability scales over the course of the study. On the EDSS scale (which runs from 0, meaning no disability, to 10, meaning death, with lower scores being better), both groups showed small decreases from their starting scores across various time points, with changes generally ranging from around −0.11 to −0.39. On the Modified Rankin Scale (which runs from 0, meaning no symptoms, to 6, meaning death), both groups also showed small decreases from starting scores, with changes ranging from roughly −0.04 to −0.62 across different time points. It is worth noting that both groups started with somewhat different baseline scores on these scales, which the reported data does not account for in these raw figures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02073279 · results posted 31 December 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial studied a medicine called satralizumab in people with neuromyelitis optica (NMO) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) — conditions where the immune system attacks the nerves in the eyes and spine, causing relapses (sudden episodes of new or worsening symptoms). The trial had two stages: a blinded phase where neither doctors nor participants knew who received satralizumab or a dummy treatment (placebo), followed by an open-label phase where everyone received satralizumab. In the blinded phase, 32 people started in the placebo group and 63 started in the satralizumab group. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was how long it took for a participant to have their first relapse during the blinded phase. For the placebo group, the reported figure was approximately 128 weeks before a first relapse occurred; for the satralizumab group, this figure was listed as "not available" in the submitted data. The reported data also shows that the percentage of participants who remained relapse-free over time was higher in the satralizumab group than the placebo group at each time point measured — for example, at one point approximately 89% of the satralizumab group remained relapse-free compared to around 75% in the placebo group. The rate of relapses per year was reported as 0.17 for the satralizumab group and 0.41 for the placebo group. For secondary measures such as self-reported pain scores and fatigue scores, both groups showed some change from their starting scores, though the figures were similar between groups and no conclusions about what those differences mean should be drawn here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03002038 · results posted 30 September 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 86 people in total — 46 were given a medicine called azathioprine and 40 were given a medicine called rituximab. The trial was looking at people with a relapsing condition (most likely multiple sclerosis, based on the measures used) and compared how the two medicines performed over 12 months. By the end of the study, 35 people in the azathioprine group and 33 in the rituximab group had completed the trial. The primary thing being measured was how often participants experienced relapses (flare-ups of their condition) per year. The reported data shows that, at the start of the study, the azathioprine group had an average of 1.0 relapses per year and the rituximab group had an average of 1.30 relapses per year. After 12 months, the reported figures were 0.51 relapses per year for the azathioprine group and 0.21 relapses per year for the rituximab group. The trial also measured disability levels using a scoring system called the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), which runs from 0 (no problems detected) to 10 (most severe). The reported data shows that at the start, the azathioprine group scored an average of 2.40 and the rituximab group scored 3.55. After 12 months, those figures were reported as 1.95 for the azathioprine group and 2.56 for the rituximab group. The reported data also noted the number of participants who experienced unwanted reactions to the medicines: 3 out of 46 people in the azathioprine group and 4 out of 40 people in the rituximab group. No further detail about the nature of those reactions was included in the structured data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03452176 · results posted 17 April 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 22 people in total — 11 in the "Scrambler" group (who received the active treatment) and 11 in the "Sham-Control" group (who received a inactive/dummy version of the treatment). The trial was not designed to prove whether the treatment works; instead, it was a small study focused on two practical questions: whether participants would want to keep using the treatment if it were available (called "acceptability"), and whether people could realistically stick to the 10 scheduled treatment visits (called "feasibility"). Pain levels were also tracked as a secondary — or additional — measure, using a scale from 1 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). The reported data shows that, for acceptability, 7 out of 11 people in the Scrambler group said they would want to continue the treatment if it were available, compared with 5 out of 11 in the Sham-Control group. For feasibility, all 11 participants in the Scrambler group completed all 10 treatment visits, while 9 out of 11 did so in the Sham-Control group. Regarding pain scores, the reported data shows that the Scrambler group started with an average pain score of 5.0 and this score was recorded at 1.5 at the end of treatment (Day 10), compared with the Sham-Control group, which started at 5.0 and was recorded at 4.0 at Day 10. At 30 days after treatment, average pain scores were reported as 4.5 for the Scrambler group and 5.0 for the Sham-Control group, and these same figures were again recorded at the 60-day follow-up point. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00787722 · results posted 28 February 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 13 participants, all of whom underwent a procedure called haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) — a process where a person's own blood-forming stem cells are used to try to "reset" the immune system. Twelve of the 13 participants completed the study. The trial was looking at a condition called neuromyelitis optica (NMO), a rare disease that attacks the nervous system. The researchers tracked survival, quality of life, disability levels, walking ability, immune-related medications, disease relapses, and levels of a specific antibody linked to the condition — all measured at various points up to five years after the transplant. The reported data shows that of the 13 participants who started, 13 were alive at 6 months, 12 at 1 year, 12 at 2 years, and 11 at each of the 3, 4, and 5-year points. For quality of life (measured on a scale of 0–100, where 100 is the best possible), the reported average scores were 30.83 before the transplant, 52.69 at one point after, and 61.63 at a later follow-up. For disability (measured on a scale of 0–10, where higher means more disability), the reported average scores were 4.4 before transplant, 2.8 at one follow-up, and 3.3 at another. Regarding walking without a mobility aid, the reported numbers of participants who needed no device were 6 before the transplant, rising to 9 or 10 at various time points, and sitting at 9 at the five-year mark. The reported data also shows that of 12 participants assessed at five years, 1 had experienced a relapse and 1 was still taking immune-modulating medication. For the specific antibody linked to NMO, 11 participants tested positive before the transplant, compared with 2 after. It is important to note that this was a very small study with only 13 participants and no comparison group, so the numbers above reflect only what was observed in this one group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00879658 · results posted 13 January 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested a drug called BAF312 (also known as siponimod) in people with multiple sclerosis. The study was run in two periods, with participants receiving different doses of BAF312 — ranging from 0.25 mg up to 10 mg — or a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). Across both periods, a total of 297 people started the study, spread across seven treatment groups. The trial was mainly measuring how BAF312 affected brain lesions (areas of damage) visible on MRI scans, and whether there was a pattern where higher doses produced a stronger response. The reported data shows that the primary focus was on counting "combined unique active lesions" on MRI — that is, new or growing areas of brain damage detected by two different types of scan, without counting the same lesion twice. The trial calculated two dose benchmarks: the dose estimated to produce half of the maximum possible lesion reduction (called ED50) was reported as 0.51 mg, the dose estimated to produce 90% of the maximum reduction (ED90) was reported as 0.83 mg, and a further figure of 7.46 mg was also reported, though the specific meaning of this third number was not clearly labelled in the submitted data. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that the average monthly number of new MRI lesions (a type called Gd-enhanced T1 lesions) appeared lower in the BAF312 groups compared to placebo — for example, at the three-month mark, the placebo group averaged 1.4 lesions per month, while the 10 mg and 1.25 mg groups each averaged 0.2. The proportion of participants who had no confirmed relapses (episodes of worsening symptoms) ranged from 0.77 to 0.93 across the BAF312 dose groups, compared to 0.72 to 0.88 in the placebo groups, across the study periods. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02200770 · results posted 26 December 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02200770) looked at a condition called Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder (NMOSD), a rare disease that can cause episodes of worsening symptoms affecting vision, movement, and other functions. A total of 231 people took part in the main controlled phase — 56 received a placebo (an inactive treatment) followed later by the study drug inebilizumab, while 175 received inebilizumab from the start. The trial was primarily measuring how long it took before participants experienced a confirmed NMOSD attack, and also tracked a range of other things including changes in disability, vision, brain and spinal cord scans, and hospital stays. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — time to a confirmed NMOSD attack — no specific number of days was reported in the submitted data for either group. For the secondary measures, the percentage of people whose disability score worsened during the controlled phase was reported as 33.9% in the placebo group and 14.9% in the inebilizumab group. A vision test using both eyes showed an average score of 1.44 (placebo) versus 1.58 (inebilizumab) out of a possible 70, where a higher score means better vision. The average number of new or active lesions spotted on brain and spinal cord scans was 2.3 in the placebo group and 1.6 in the inebilizumab group. The number of NMOSD-related hospital stays was 1.4 in the placebo group and 1.0 in the inebilizumab group. The reported data also shows that across all participants who received inebilizumab at any point in the trial (including both phases), the average number of confirmed NMOSD attacks per year was reported as 0.086 — meaning roughly 86 attacks for every 1,000 people over one year. These figures are simply what was recorded and counted during the trial period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01892345 · results posted 26 June 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01892345) enrolled 143 people in total — 96 in the eculizumab group and 47 in the placebo group. The trial was measuring outcomes in people with a neurological condition, with the main question being how many participants experienced a confirmed relapse (a new or worsening bout of neurological symptoms lasting more than 24 hours, verified by a doctor and reviewed by an independent committee) during the study period. Secondary measurements included how often relapses occurred over time, changes in disability scores, walking ability, and participants' own ratings of their health. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome, 3 out of 96 participants in the eculizumab group had a confirmed on-trial relapse, compared with 20 out of 47 participants in the placebo group. For the secondary outcome of annualised relapse rate — that is, the average number of relapses per year of time spent in the study — the reported figures were 0.016 for the eculizumab group and 0.350 for the placebo group. The reported data also shows changes in several disability and function scales from the start to the end of the study. On a disability scale from 0–10, the eculizumab group's average score changed by −0.18 (a small decrease) and the placebo group's by +0.12 (a small increase). On a disability/dependence scale from 0–6, the changes were −0.2 and +0.1 respectively. On a walking ability scale from 0–9, the changes were −0.4 and +0.5 respectively. On a self-rated health scale from 0–100, participants in the eculizumab group reported an average change of +5.4 points and those in the placebo group +0.6 points. In all cases, a move in the negative direction on the disability/walking scales and a move in the positive direction on the health rating scale indicates improvement as defined by the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02276963 · results posted 6 June 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02276963) enrolled 6 participants, all of whom received a combination of ublituximab (a type of infused medicine) and glucocorticoids (a type of steroid medicine). The trial was measuring changes in neurological disability using a tool called the Expanded Disability Status Scale, or EDSS — a scoring system that runs from 0 (no disability) to 10 (deceased), where a higher number reflects greater disability. Of the 6 people who started the trial, 3 completed it and 3 did not complete it; the reasons for not completing were not detailed in the reported data. The reported data shows four EDSS measurements were recorded for the single group, with scores of 4.0, 6.5, 6.5, and 4.0. The trial's results do not clearly specify at what time points these individual scores were taken or which participants they belong to, so it is not possible to describe the full picture of change over time from the available data. No additional secondary outcome measure data was reported in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial — only 6 participants in total — and the reported data is limited. The reported data shows only these raw numbers, without additional context about what the changes in scores mean in terms of the study's overall conclusions. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02166346 · results posted 17 April 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this was a crossover trial — meaning participants took both the study drug (dalfampridine) and a dummy pill (placebo) at different points in time. A total of 24 people were enrolled at the start, but 8 did not continue past the initial screening and randomisation stage, leaving 16 people who entered the treatment phases. The trial was measuring walking speed and muscle strength in people taking dalfampridine compared to placebo. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — walking speed over a 25-foot walk — individual participants' average speeds (in feet per second) while on dalfampridine were reported as approximately 0.33, 0.46, 0.54, and 0.38 feet per second, while their average speeds on placebo were approximately 0.47, 0.17, 0.57, and 0.21 feet per second respectively. For the secondary measure — changes in upper and lower limb muscle strength (measured in pounds using a handheld device) over the 8-week treatment period — the reported changes while on dalfampridine ranged from approximately −1.36 to +3.98 pounds across the different muscle groups tested, while changes on placebo ranged from approximately −4.42 to +2.85 pounds. The data was reported at the individual measurement level, and no single overall summary figure across all participants was provided in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00179478 · results posted 6 September 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 155 people who had experienced a first episode of visual or neurological symptoms that could be an early sign of multiple sclerosis (MS). Participants were split into two groups: 81 people who started treatment straight away (the "Immediate Treatment Group") and 74 who had their treatment delayed (the "Delayed Treatment Group"). The trial followed participants for up to 10 years and was measuring whether starting treatment earlier made a difference to the chances of going on to develop a confirmed MS diagnosis, as well as tracking relapses, a measure of physical impairment, and changes visible on brain scans. The reported data shows that over 10 years, 58% of people in the immediate treatment group and 69% of people in the delayed treatment group went on to develop a confirmed MS diagnosis. For relapses (episodes of new or returning symptoms), the immediate treatment group had an average of 0.16 per year, while the delayed treatment group had 0.33 per year. A measure of physical impairment called the EDSS — a scale from 0 (normal) to 10 — was also recorded; 7 participants in the immediate group and 5 in the delayed group scored above 3.5 on this scale at the end of the study, which is described as moving from mild into moderate impairment. Separately, brain scans showed an average of 5 new or enlarged lesion areas (spots of activity on the scan) in the immediate group and 7 in the delayed group over the 10 years. It is worth noting that of those who started the study, 68 of 81 in the immediate group and 59 of 74 in the delayed group completed it, meaning some participants did not finish the full 10 years. The reported data shows the numbers above but does not, on their own, tell us why any differences between the groups occurred. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00904826 · results posted 4 November 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 14 participants, all of whom completed the study — none dropped out. The trial was looking at a medicine called eculizumab and its potential role in neuromyelitis optica (NMO), a rare condition that can cause episodes of inflammation affecting the eyes and spinal cord. The main thing the researchers were measuring was how many NMO "attacks" (sudden flare-ups of the condition) participants experienced per year. The reported data shows that before joining the trial, participants had a median (middle value in the group) of 3 NMO attacks per year. During the 12 months on eculizumab, the reported median number of attacks was 0. As a secondary measure, the data shows that 2 out of 14 participants did experience at least one NMO attack during the treatment period. The reported data also shows changes on a disability rating scale (scored 0–10, where higher means more disability): on average, participants' scores changed by −0.7 points, meaning a small shift toward the lower end of the scale. Five participants were reported to have had a change in vision of at least one point on the measurement scale used, and 3 participants had a change in their walking ability of at least one point on that scale. The trial also measured the amount of eculizumab in participants' blood at various points, with reported average levels ranging from 187 to 246 micrograms per millilitre across different time points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

See the full Transverse Myelitis page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.