MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518733222 · doi:10.1111/wrr.12467

Phase 3 evaluation of HP802‐247 in the treatment of chronic venous leg ulcers

2016· article· en· W2518733222 on OpenAlexaff
Robert S. Kirsner, Wolfgang Vanscheidt, David Keast, John C Lantis, Cyaandi Dove, Shawn Cazzell, Mher Vartivarian, Matthias Augustin, William A. Marston, Nicholas D. McCoy, D. Innes Cargill, Tommy D. Lee, Jaime E. Dickerson, Herbert B. Slade

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Repair and Regeneration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialConcordanceClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialPhases of clinical researchInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2012 we reported promising results from a phase 2 clinical trial of HP802-247, a novel spray-applied investigational treatment for chronic venous leg ulcers consisting of human, allogeneic fibroblasts and keratinocytes. We now describe phase 3 clinical testing of HP802-247, its failure to detect efficacy, and subsequent investigation into the root causes of the failure. Two randomized, controlled trials enrolled a total of 673 adult outpatients at 96 centers in North America and Europe. The primary endpoint was the proportion of ulcers with confirmed closure at the end of 12 weeks of treatment. An investigation into the root cause for the failure of HP802-247 to show efficacy in these two phase 3 trials was initiated immediately following the initial review of the North American trial results. Four hundred twenty-one patients were enrolled in the North American (HP802-247, 211; Vehicle 210) and 252 in the European (HP802-247, 131; Vehicle 121) trials. No difference in proportion of closed ulcers at week 12 was observed between treatment groups for either the North American (HP802-247, 61.1%; Vehicle 60.0%; p = 0.5896) or the European (HP802-247, 47.0%; Vehicle 50.0%; p = 0.5348) trials. Thorough investigation found no likelihood that design or execution of the trials contributed to the failure. Variability over time during the trials in the clinical response implicated the quality of the cells comprising HP802-247. Concordance between the two separate, randomized, controlled trials with distinct, nonoverlapping investigative sites and independent monitoring teams renders the possibility of a Type II error vanishingly small and provides strong credibility for the unexpected lack of efficacy observed. The most likely causative factors for the efficacy failure in phase 3 was phenotypic change in the cells (primarily keratinocytes) leading to batch to batch variability due to the age of the cell banks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWound Repair and RegenerationSame topicDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous DiseasesFrench-language works237,207