Long‐acting recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein (<scp>rFIXF</scp>c) for perioperative management of subjects with haemophilia B in the phase 3 <scp>B‐LONG</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the phase 3 B-LONG (Recombinant Factor IX Fc Fusion Protein [rFIXFc] in Subjects With Haemophilia B) study, rFIXFc demonstrated a prolonged half-life compared with recombinant factor IX (rFIX), and safety and efficacy for prophylaxis and treatment of bleeding in subjects with moderately-severe to severe haemophilia B. In this B-LONG sub-analysis, rFIXFc was evaluated for efficacy in subjects requiring major surgery. Dosing was investigator-determined. Assessments included dosing, consumption, bleeding, transfusions and haemostatic response. A population pharmacokinetics model of rFIXFc was used to predict FIX activity. Twelve subjects underwent 14 major surgeries (including 11 orthopaedic surgeries); most subjects (11/12) received rFIXFc prophylaxis before surgery (range, ~2 weeks-12 months). Investigators/surgeons rated haemostatic responses as excellent (n = 13) or good (n = 1). In most surgeries (85·7%), haemostasis from the pre-surgical dose until the end of surgery was maintained with a single rFIXFc infusion. Blood loss was consistent with similar surgeries in subjects without haemophilia. The strong correlation (R(2) = 0·9586, P < 0·001) between observed and population pharmacokinetic model-predicted FIX activity suggests surgery did not impact rFIXFc pharmacokinetics. No unique safety concerns or inhibitors were observed. In conclusion, rFIXFc was safe and efficacious, with prolonged dosing intervals and low consumption, when used perioperatively in haemophilia B. Surgery did not appear to alter rFIXFc pharmacokinetics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".