MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 14024: Results of a Phase I / II Multicenter Investigation of Udenafil in Adolescents After Fontan Palliation

2015· article· en· W2537938090 on OpenAlexaff
David Goldberg, Victor Zak, Bryan H. Goldstein, Shan Chen, Michelle Hamstra, Elizabeth Radojewski, Eileen Maunsell, Seema Mital, Shaji C. Menon, Kurt R. Schumacher, R. Mark Payne, Mario Stylianou, Jonathan R. Kaltman, Stephen M. Paridon

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMulticenter studyFontan procedureInternal medicineCardiologyHeart diseaseRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Many pediatric clinical trials fail due to use of sub-therapeutic dosing. This phase I / II clinical trial was designed to evaluate the short-term safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and preliminary efficacy of udenafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, in adolescents following Fontan palliation to inform dose selection for a phase III clinical trial. Methods: This was a dose escalation trial with 5 dosing cohorts of 6 subjects each at 37.5 mg, 87.5 mg, and 125 mg daily, as well as 37.5 mg and 87.5 mg twice daily (bid) for 5 days. Efficacy testing (echocardiography, exercise stress test, endothelial function assessment) was performed at baseline and on day 5. A control cohort of 6 subjects underwent exercise testing without drug administration. Serum samples for PK analysis were collected on days 6-8. Adverse events (AE) were recorded throughout the 8-day study period and for 3 months thereafter. Comparison between baseline and day 5 testing was performed using ANOVA and visual trend lines. PK analysis was performed using a non-linear mixed effects model. Results: The trial enrolled 36 subjects at a mean age of 15.8 years (58.3% male). Subject characteristics were similar between cohorts. No drug-related serious AEs were reported during the study period, while 24 subjects had non-serious AEs possibly or probably related to study drug. Headache was the most common, occurring in 20 of the 30 subjects. Other possibly or probably medication related side effects occurring in more than one subject included: facial flushing (10 subjects), nasal congestion (7), spontaneous penile erection (6), nausea (3), and abdominal discomfort (2). The 87.5 mg bid cohort achieved the highest steady state serum concentration (172 ng/mL, range 117-202), the highest maximal concentration (506 +/- 188 ng/mL), and the greatest area under the curve for 24 hours (6701 +/- 1591 ng*hr/mL). Efficacy test results did not change significantly in any cohort. Conclusion: Udenafil was safe and well tolerated at all dosing levels while the 87.5 mg bid cohort achieved the highest serum drug level. With a 5-day treatment period and small sample size no significant clinical changes were observed. These data suggest that the 87.5 mg bid regimen may be most appropriate for a Phase III clinical trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207