Further to my review of The Lancet Neurology report . . . :

The report ". . . patient population in the present study is characteristic of the ALS population in terms of age, sex, site of onset, and proportion with a clear family history . . ." is erroneous insofar as gender is concerned . . . no publication I am aware of has males nearly four times more likely to acquire ALS than females. The idea of randomization in the context of these kind of trials is to produce what could be called 'fair teams' in the groups undergoing treatment in consideration of whether there is efficacy against the disease(s) processes . . . one of the problems of ALS research is the unpredictability of each particular patient's likely survival. Would equal unfairness improve the reliability of a result? Variances as high as those found in ALS are quite rare among diseases, if there are any existing at all. The easiest tactic to compensate for this problem is to make the 'teams' larger, probably much larger; in a group of thirty-seven patients one would expect about seven whose regression rate is slow. "The Lancet Neurology's" report indicates five plus one patients had effectively abandoned the DPS branch of the trial. Could all of these have been slow regressors? How vulnerable are these trials to disruption . . . "to death from any cause."

Why did they call it ALS rather than MND (in the UK they call it MND)?

I have no print copy of the report . . . although I am searching for one. To the best of my knowledge and belief the French have not yet published a full report.