Patient and Clinical Experience on Concizumab Clinical Trial: A Case Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The patient is an adolescent with severe hemophilia B who was enrolled in Novo Nordisk concizumab clinical trial NCT04082429 (explorer8) following completion of the non-interventional study NCT03741881 (explorer6). At the start of the non-interventional study, the patient had three reported target joints and one target joint remaining at the time of enrollment in the clinical trial. Annualized bleed rate (ABR) in the non-interventional study was 7.5 and 50.6 during the clinical trial. Of the total bleeds, over 23 anatomical areas were reported during the clinical trial, 28.6% of the bleeds came from the known target joint. The patient's physical activities changed during the non-interventional study due to the COVID-19 lockdown, and they were possibly less active during the study period with sport activity rated as low to moderate risk. During the clinical trial, the patient was physically active, engaging in ball hockey and cross-country running. Sport activity was rated as moderate risk and moderate to high risk at baseline and week 28 of the clinical trial respectively. The patient's concizumab dose was 0.25 mg/kg. The maintenance dose was initiated on week 4 based on a concizumab exposure of 97.9 ng/mL. Prior to explorer8, the patient was intensely treated with daily BeneFIX® and Rebinyn® prophylaxis during explorer6, but both FIX standard and extended half-life treatment failed to prevent bleeding episodes. Key Clinical Question: What factors should be considered when determining whether a patient should be withdrawn from a clinical trial? Clinical Approach: Throughout the clinical trial, the investigator discussed withdrawal from the study because of an increase in the number of bleeding episodes; however, the patient remained in the clinical trial as the patient and their family preferred concizumab over previous prophylaxis regimens. The patient reported on several occasions that they felt better despite the increased number of bleeding episodes. The patient reported that while on concizumab, the bleeding episodes were easier to treat, required shorter duration of treatment, and had less impact on the patient's daily life. The patient had concizumab plasma concentrations around or below 100 ng/mL except for the first measurement after initiating treatment with concizumab and had an increase in free TFPI over time. No response in thrombin generation was observed. It was not until a biological explanation behind the increase in bleeding episodes was available that the patient and family agreed to withdraw from the clinical trial. Conclusion: This case study demonstrates a patient who was difficult to treat with limited response to both FIX and concizumab. This case also raises several questions including: 1) Should the investigator have insisted that the patient be removed from the clinical trial before the biological data became available? 2) Is there something about concizumab that made it easier to treat bleeds? This case demonstrates that we may have more to learn from our patients on why they choose to participate and/or stay on clinical trials. Disclaimer: Novo Nordisk had no influence on the content of the abstract. The studies explorer6 and 8 are sponsored by Novo Nordisk.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».