MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970162264 · doi:10.1186/s13223-019-0362-1

Subcutaneous C1 inhibitor for prevention of attacks of hereditary angioedema: additional outcomes and subgroup analysis of a placebo-controlled randomized study

2019· article· en· W2970162264 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H. Henry Li, Bruce L. Zuraw, Hilary Longhurst, Marco Cicardi, Konrad Bork, James Baker, William R. Lumry, Jonathan A. Bernstein, Michael Manning, Donald S. Levy, Marc A. Riedl, Henrike Feuersenger, Subhransu Prusty, Ingo Pragst, Thomas Machnig, Timothy Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and Angioedema
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenentechGrifolsSwedish Orphan BiovitrumCSL BehringBioCrystU.S. Department of DefenseAlnylam PharmaceuticalsViropharmaArrowhead PharmaceuticalsSanofiGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsHereditary angioedemaSubgroup analysisMedicinePlaceboC1-inhibitorRandomized controlled trialAngioedemaInternal medicineMeta-analysisDermatologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a debilitating disorder resulting from C1-esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) deficiency. In the COMPACT phase 3 study the prophylactic use of a subcutaneous C1 inhibitor (C1-INH [SC], HAEGARDA®, CSL Behring) twice weekly significantly reduced the frequency of acute edema attacks. Analysis of treatment effects by subgroups, onset of effect, and other exploratory analysis have not been reported. Methods This is a post hoc exploratory analysis on data from the randomized, placebo-controlled COMPACT study. 90 patients with C1-INH-HAE were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment sequences: C1-INH (SC) 40 or 60 IU/kg of body weight twice weekly for 16 weeks, preceded or followed by a placebo period. The pre-specified primary efficacy endpoint was the time-normalized number of HAE attacks, and pre-specified secondary efficacy endpoints were the percentage of patients with a certain treatment response (≥ 50% reduction on C1-INH (SC) versus placebo in the time-normalized number of attacks) and the time-normalized number of use of rescue medication. Pre-specified exploratory endpoints included severity of attacks, alone and combined with rescue medication use. Post hoc analyses included exploration of onset of effect and clinical assessment of patients with < 50% of response. Results Subgroup findings by various patient characteristics showed a consistent preventive effect of C1-INH (SC). In a post hoc analysis of attacks, the onset of the preventive effect within the first 2 weeks after treatment initiation in COMPACT showed that 10/43 patients (23%) experienced attacks of any severity with 60 IU/kg versus 34/42 patients (81%) with placebo. The need for rescue medication was tenfold lower with 60 IU/kg (35 treated attacks) versus placebo (358 treated attacks). A qualitative analysis of the 4 patients treated with 60 IU/kg and with < 50% reduction of attacks demonstrated a reduction in severity of attacks, rescue medication use, and symptom days which was considered a clinically meaningful treatment effect. Conclusions C1-INH (SC) prophylaxis demonstrated a preventive treatment effect with evidence of benefit within 2 weeks. A consistent treatment effect at recommended C1-INH (SC) dosing was evident in all subgroups of patients with type I/II HAE and by various measures of disease and treatment burden. Trial registration EU Clinical Trials Register, 2013-000916-10, Registered 10 December 2013, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2013-000916-10 ; ClinicalTrials.gov Register, NCT01912456, Registered 31 July 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01912456 .

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.319
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and AngioedemaFrench-language works237,207