MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763884924 · doi:10.1186/s13601-017-0172-9

An open-label study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of lanadelumab for prevention of attacks in hereditary angioedema: design of the HELP study extension

2017· article· en· W2763884924 on OpenAlexaff
Marc A. Riedl, Jonathan A. Bernstein, Timothy Craig, Aleena Banerji, Markus Magerl, Marco Cicardi, Hilary Longhurst, Mustafa M. Shennak, William H. Yang, Jennifer Schranz, Jovanna Baptista, Paula J. Busse

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Translational Allergy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and Angioedema
Canadian institutionsOttawa Allergy Research CorporationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHereditary angioedemaMedicineTerm (time)Extension (predicate logic)AngioedemaIntensive care medicineDermatologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is characterized by recurrent attacks of subcutaneous or submucosal edema. Attacks are unpredictable, debilitating, and have a significant impact on quality of life. Patients may be prescribed prophylactic therapy to prevent angioedema attacks. Current prophylactic treatments may be difficult to administer (i.e., intravenously), require frequent administrations or are not well tolerated, and breakthrough attacks may still occur frequently. Lanadelumab is a subcutaneously-administered monoclonal antibody inhibitor of plasma kallikrein in clinical development for prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema attacks. A Phase 1b study supported its efficacy in preventing attacks. A Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study has been completed and an open-label extension is currently ongoing. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of the open-label extension is to evaluate the long-term safety of repeated subcutaneous administrations of lanadelumab in patients with type I/II HAE. Secondary objectives include evaluation of efficacy and time to first angioedema attack to determine outer bounds of the dosing interval. The study will also evaluate immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, quality of life, characteristics of breakthrough attacks, ease of self-administration, and safety/efficacy in patients who switch to lanadelumab from another prophylactic therapy. The open-label extension will enroll patients who completed the double-blind study ("rollover patients") and those who did not participate in the double-blind study ("non-rollover patients"), which includes patients who may or may not be currently using another prophylactic therapy. Rollover patients will receive a single 300 mg dose of lanadelumab on Day 0 and the second dose after the patient's first confirmed angioedema attack. Thereafter, lanadelumab will be administered every 2 weeks. Non-rollover patients will receive 300 mg lanadelumab every 2 weeks regardless of the first attack. All patients will receive their last dose on Day 350 (maximum of 26 doses), and will then undergo a 4-week follow-up. DISCUSSION: NCT02741596.

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)0.009
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Translational AllergySame topicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and AngioedemaFrench-language works237,207