MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2642929279 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.1413.1413

Longitudinal Analysis of Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Recombinant Factor VIII Fc Fusion Protein (rFVIIFc) in Adults/Adolescents with Severe Hemophilia a

2016· article· en· W2642929279 sur OpenAlexaff
Barbara A. Konkle, John Pasi, David J. Perry, Johnny Mahlangu, Savita Rangarajan, Simon Brown, Hideji Hanabusa, Ingrid Pabinger, Lynda M. Cristiano, Elisa Tsao, Bent Winding, Desilu Glazebrook, Stefan Lethagen, Shannon Jackson

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensSt. Paul's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineDosingInterim analysisInterimInternal medicineFactor IXPediatricsClinical trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Prophylactic replacement of coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) is the standard of care for patients with hemophilia A; however, prophylaxis with conventional FVIII products usually requires frequent intravenous injections (3-4 times/week). The safety, efficacy, and prolonged half-life of rFVIIIFc in previously treated adults and adolescents (≥12 y) with severe hemophilia A were demonstrated in the phase 3 A-LONG study (NCT01181128, completed) and ASPIRE extension study (NCT01454739, ongoing). Here, we report cumulative long-term data on the safety and efficacy of rFVIIIFc in study participants as of the second interim data cut (8 Dec 2014). Methods: This longitudinal analysis includes cumulative data from A-LONG and ASPIRE (as of the second interim data cut 8 Dec 2014) for subjects treated with ≥1 dose of rFVIIIFc. A-LONG evaluated 2 prophylaxis regimens-individualized (IP): 25 IU/kg on Day 1 and 50 IU/kg on Day 4 to start, then 25-65 IU/kg every 3-5 days, to target a 1-3 IU/dL FVIII trough level, and weekly (WP): 65 IU/kg dosed once weekly-as well as episodic (on-demand) treatment (ET). Subjects completing A-LONG and meeting enrollment criteria for ASPIRE could participate in the IP, WP, or ET groups, or, if optimal dosing could not be achieved with IP or WP, in an additional modified prophylaxis (MP) group. Subjects could change treatment groups at any point during ASPIRE. Efficacy analyses were performed using data summarized according to the treatment group in which each subject participated, for the time period they were in that treatment group; thus, subjects may be included in the analysis of more than one group. Outcomes evaluated included: incidence of inhibitors (neutralizing antibody value ≥0.6 BU/mL identified and confirmed on 2 separate samples drawn approximately 2-4 weeks apart and performed by the central laboratory as measured by the Nijmegen-modified Bethesda assay), adverse events (AEs), annualized bleeding rate (ABR), treatment of acute bleeds, and prophylactic consumption and dosing interval compared to pre-A-LONG (prestudy). Results: Of 164 subjects dosed with rFVIIIFc during A-LONG, 153 completed the study and 150 enrolled in ASPIRE; at the time of this second interim data cut, 97 subjects were ongoing in ASPIRE, 40 subjects had completed the study, and 13 subjects withdrew. Cumulatively, subjects had 38,662 rFVIIIFc exposure days (EDs), inclusive of surgery. As of this second interim data cut (8 Dec 2014), no inhibitors were observed; the type and incidence of adverse events (AEs) observed were typical of previous hemophilia A populations studied. There were no reports of anaphylaxis or serious hypersensitivity events, and no serious vascular thrombotic events. Median ABRs for subjects on IP and WP (MP was not an option during A-LONG) were lower with rFVIIIFc compared with prestudy FVIII for subjects on prestudy prophylaxis or ET (Figure). In the IP group, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) spontaneous ABRs in Years 1, 2, and 3 on-study were 0.0 (0.0, 2.0), 0.0 (0.0, 1.0), and 0.0 (0.0, 1.0), respectively. In the WP treatment group, the median (IQR) spontaneous ABRs in Years 1, 2, and 3 on-study were 1.0 (0.5, 3.0), 0.5 (0.0, 2.1), and 0.0 (0.0, 1.0), respectively. Overall, 88.5% and 97.0% of bleeding episodes were controlled with 1 or ≤2 intervenous injections, respectively. Among subjects treated with FVIII prophylaxis prestudy (n = 79), 86% were dosed at least 3 times/week prestudy. Compared with prestudy dosing intervals, dosing intervals with rFVIIIFc were extended in 96.2% of subjects, were shortened in 2.5% of subjects, and were unchanged in 1.3% of subjects. The median (IQR) total weekly prophylactic consumption was comparable (prestudy FVIII: 78.0 [60.0, 102.0] IU/kg; on-study rFVIIIFc: 75.0 [70.0, 113.8] IU/kg). Conclusions: Longitudinal data from patients with severe hemophilia A treated with rFVIIIFc in A-LONG and ASPIRE confirm long-term safety, with no inhibitors observed in any subject. Low median ABRs were maintained, and rFVIIIFc demonstrated efficacy in the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes. Prophylactic dosing intervals were extended, without an increase in median prophylactic factor consumption. This research was funded by Biogen and Sobi. Biogen and Sobi reviewed and provided feedback on the abstract. The authors had full editorial control of the abstract and provided their final approval of all content. Disclosures Pasi: Biogen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; SOBI: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Perry:Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biogen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mahlangu:Bayer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biotest: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy. Rangarajan:Baxter: Research Funding; Baxalta, now part of Shire: Other: Investigator Clinical Studies, Research Funding; Biogen: Consultancy; Biotest: Research Funding; Grifols: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding. Brown:Baxter: Consultancy; Biogen: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy. Hanabusa:Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxalta: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KaketsuKen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Biogen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pabinger:Biotest: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cristiano:Biogen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tsao:Biogen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Winding:Sobi: Employment. Glazebrook:Biogen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lethagen:Sobi: Employment. Jackson:Biogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Baxalta/Shire: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Baxter: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,024

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHemophilia Treatment and Research→Travaux en français237 207→