MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Post-Marketing Surveillance Study of the Safety and Efficiacy of Refacto® (Moroctocog Alfa, B-Domain Deleted Recombinant Factor VIII) (St. Louis-Derived Active Substance in the Treatment and Prevension of Bleeding Episodes in Hemophilia a Patients.

2004· article· en· W2558013362 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Feingold, Mark P. Smith, Richard Littlewood, Paul Giangrande

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectDosingConcomitantRegimenPostmarketing surveillanceInternal medicineSurgeryClinical endpointClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This was an open-label, multicenter, post-marketing surveillance study conducted in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, and UK. The objectives were to assess the safety and clinical efficacy of ReFacto St Louis-derived active substance (STL) in the treatment and prevention of bleeding episodes in patients with hemophilia A in the usual care setting. 60 patients with moderate to severe hemophilia A (FVIII:C <5%) with no history of FVIII inhibitor were enrolled (58 were previously treated patients and 2 were previously untreated patients). Data on infusions, concomitant medications, adverse events, and inhibitor development were collected from patients at regular intervals. Efficacy for prophylaxis was assessed by the investigator approximately every 3 months until 50 exposure days, 6 months or study termination using the number of breakthrough bleeding episodes and the 3-point scale (excellent, effective, and inadequate). The efficacy of each on-demand treatment administered was assessed using the 4-point scale (excellent, good, moderate, and no response). The investigator and surgeon assessed efficacy of surgical prophylaxis jointly after each surgery using the 4-point scale (excellent, good, moderate, and no response). Factor VIII inhibitor (using local laboratory Bethesda assay) was evaluated at screening, after 10 EDs, after 30 EDs, and at the end of treatment. The investigator determined all dosing and treatment regimens. In the prophylaxis treatment group, no particular prophylaxis regimen was enforced. A total of 32 patients aged 0–66 years initially received prophylaxis treatment: 10 (31%) patients reported no breakthrough bleeds. A median of 6.25 bleeds per year occurred in all prophylaxis patients. Twenty-nine assessments of the prophylactic treatment final outcome were made: 93% of these assessments were excellent or effective. A total of 28 patients aged 1–71 years initially received on-demand treatment with ReFacto STL. 95.2% of bleeds were resolved with 1 or 2 infusions. The assessment of treatment response was excellent or good in 98% of cases. Seven patients underwent 7 surgical procedures, haemostasis was achieved all cases and ReFacto STL was rated as providing an excellent or good response as the final outcome in each case. As this was a post-marketing study, safety evaluation was focused on collection of serious AEs and product-related non-serious AEs. One PTP (1/58, 1.7%) developed a high titre inhibitor and 1/58 (1.7%) developed a low titre transient inhibitor. One PUP developed a low titre transient inhibitor (0.4 BU). SAEs included 1 fatal intracranial hemorrhage (considered unrelated to ReFacto), 5 preplanned surgeries, 1 episode of gastroenteritis, and 1 hemorrhage. There were no allergic events. Three patients were withdrawn from treatment for safety reasons (1 patient due to death, 1 PTP due to high titre inhibitor and 1 PTP due to low titre transient inhibitor). The nature and incidence of non-serious AEs did not raise new safety concerns. The majority of AEs were mild or moderate in severity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→