Safety and effectiveness of room temperature stable recombinant factor <scp>VII</scp>a in patients with haemophilia A or B and inhibitors: Results of a multinational, prospective, observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A room temperature stable formulation of recombinant activated factor VII (NovoSeven®), allowing convenient storage and therefore improved treatment access, has been developed. Bioequivalence to the previous NovoSeven® was demonstrated in healthy humans, leading to European approval (2008). Although no confirmed cases of neutralising antibodies to rFVIIa in patients with haemophilia A or B have been observed with the original formulation, changes in formulation or storage condition may alter immunogenicity. Aim SMART‐7™ was designed to investigate the safety of NovoSeven® in a real‐world setting in patients with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors. Methods Study medication was not provided by the sponsor, and treatment was at the discretion of the treating physician, in accordance with the local label. Patient baseline information was collected at enrolment. Information on safety, drug exposure and bleeding episodes was collected and FVII antibody screening was encouraged at baseline and performed at the investigator's discretion. Results Fifty‐one patients were enrolled and 31 completed the study. Forty‐one adverse events (AEs) were reported in 23 patients; 25 AEs in 14 patients were serious. No thromboembolic events were observed. Although four cases of reduced therapeutic response were reported, FVII antibody screening was negative. Forty‐eight patients experienced 618 bleeding episodes and 93.4% of 609 evaluated bleeds were stopped by treatment. Of the 538 bleeding episodes treated with NovoSeven® monotherapy, 94.2% stopped by end of treatment. Conclusion Data collected during the SMART‐7™ study revealed no treatment‐related safety issues and no FVII‐binding antibodies for patients treated with NovoSeven® under real‐world conditions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".