S1154 Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Hepatic Porphyria Treated With Givosiran Who Stopped Hemin Prophylaxis at Study Entry: A Post Hoc Analysis of Data From the Phase 3 ENVISION Study Through Month 12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute Hepatic Porphyria (AHP) is a family of rare genetic diseases due to enzyme defects in heme synthesis in the liver. Accumulation of toxic heme intermediates ALA and PBG may result in neurovisceral attacks and chronic manifestations. Intravenous (IV) hemin is approved to treat acute attacks and is sometimes used off-label prophylactically. In the ENVISION study in AHP patients, givosiran, an RNAi therapeutic, reduced the composite porphyria annualized porphyria attack rate (AAR) vs. placebo (pbo). A post-hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate outcomes in AHP patients with or without prior hemin prophylaxis prior to screening. METHODS: ENVISION (NCT03338816) is an ongoing Phase 3 global, randomized, pbo-controlled study, evaluating givosiran efficacy and safety in symptomatic AHP patients in a 6-month double blind (DB) period and an open label extension (OLE) period (30 months). Patients were required to discontinue prophylactic hemin treatment at study entry, but could receive hemin for acute attacks. Outcome measures included the composite porphyria AAR (defined as attacks requiring hospitalization, urgent care, or IV hemin at home). Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: For AHP patients on prior hemin prophylaxis (median historical AAR: 9.0), a 77% reduction in mean AAR was observed with givosiran treatment vs. pbo in the DB period (Table 1). A similar reduction (63%) in mean AAR was observed in those without prior hemin prophylaxis (median historical AAR: 7.0). In both groups, further reduction in AAR was observed in patients who continued on givosiran in the OLE period (Table 1). A similar reduction in AAR was also observed in both groups of pbo patients who received givosiran in the OLE (Table 1). The percentage of patients with 0 composite attacks increased in each group following 6-months of givosiran treatment in the OLE with 55% and 67% in the patients who had continued givosiran treatment (Table 1). Additional analyses of outcome measures between the two groups will be presented. CONCLUSION: Clinically meaningful reduction in the AAR was observed in AHP patients treated with givosiran regardless of whether they received hemin prophylaxis prior to study entry, with further AAR reduction observed in those who continued to receive givosiran during the OLE. In addition, a similar benefit was observed in pbo patients who received givosiran for 6-months during the OLE period regardless of prior hemin prophylaxis use.Table 1
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".