MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158956437 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvab048.1399

Switch Data From the Open-Label Extension of the Pivotal Phase 3 Study of Once Weekly Somatrogon Compared to Daily Somatropin in Pediatric Patients With Growth Hormone Deficiency (pGHD)

2021· article· en· W3158956437 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Wajnrajch, Bradley S. Miller, Joel Steelman, Lawrence A. Silverman, Moshe Phillip, Elpis Vlachopapadopoulou, Renata Stawerska, Ho-Seong Kim, O. A. Malievskiy, Cheol Woo Ko, Srinivas Rao Valluri, Carrie Turich Taylor, Carl L. Roland, John Choe, Aleksandra Pastrak, Cheri Deal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineOPKO Health (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortSomaPediatricsSomatropinInternal medicineGrowth hormone deficiencyEndocrinologyGrowth hormoneHormoneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives: Somatrogon (hGH-CTP) is a long acting recombinant human growth hormone, consisting of the amino acid sequence of hGH and three copies of the carboxy-terminal peptide (CTP) of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) being developed as a once weekly treatment for children with pGHD. This report summarizes data from the first year of the optional open-label extension (OLE) of the pivotal phase 3 global trial (ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT02968004), comparing the efficacy and safety of children switched from Genotropin (rhGH; somatropin) to somatrogon (Geno/Soma) and children maintained on somatrogon (Soma/Soma). Methods: During the main study, 224 children were randomized to receive either once weekly somatrogon (0.66 mg/kg, n=109) or once daily Genotropin (0.24 mg/kg/wk, n=115) for 12 months. Of these, 222 completed the 12-month main study, and 212 chose to enter the OLE study. By Sept 30, 2020, 161 children (including 76 Geno/Soma) had complete auxological data at month 12 of the OLE. Results: At the end of the main study, mean height velocity and gain in height SDS for the somatrogon cohort were 10.10 cm/year and 0.92; for the Genotropin cohort these were 9.78 cm/year and 0.87. Baseline values for the OLE (Soma/Soma group and Geno/Soma group, respectively): height SDS was -1.95 and -1.84, BMI was 17.03 and 15.48 kg/m2 while bone age was 6.54 and 6.40 years. At month 12 (of the OLE), the mean height velocity and the change in height SDS was 8.04 cm/year and 0.41 (Soma/Soma group) and 8.21 cm/year and 0.47 (Geno/Soma group); BMI was 18.07 and 17.49 kg/m2 and bone age was 8.48 and 8.41 years. IGF-1 SDS values were 1.15, and 1.28, while the IGFBP-3 SDS were 0.29 and 0.42, respectively. Dose reductions were required in 16.3% and 20.4% of patients due to IGF-1 SDS >2. Pubertal status changed from Tanner 1 (at OLE baseline) for 13.6% of Soma/Soma patients and 14.6% of Geno/Soma patients. Mean glucose, HbA1c, thyroid function (free T4 and TSH) and cholesterol (total, LDL and HDL) values remained similar to baseline in both groups across the 12 months OLE. The majority of adverse events in both cohorts were mild to moderate (Soma/Soma 94.2%, Geno/Soma 93.5%) and there were no clinically concerning safety observations. During the first 12 months of the OLE six patients discontinued in the Geno/Soma group due to AEs vs zero in the Soma/Soma group. Conclusions: Height velocities and change in height SDS in the OLE were similar between the Geno/Soma and Soma/Soma cohorts. The main phase of the global pivotal phase 3 trial demonstrated that somatrogon (hGH-CTP) given once weekly is non-inferior to Genotropin (hGH) while the OLE demonstrated that catch-up growth continued into the second year of treatment, with ‘switch’ from Genotropin to somatrogon non-inferior to somatrogon given for two years. Metabolic (glycemic, lipid and thyroid) parameters were similar between groups and not meaningfully different from the main study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207