MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211644911 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2021.100076

TENAYA and LUCERNE

2021· article· en· W3211644911 on OpenAlexaff
Arshad M. Khanani, Robyn H. Guymer, Karen Basu, Heather Boston, Jeffrey S. Heier, Jean‐François Korobelnik, Aachal Kotecha, Hugh Lin, David G. Silverman, Balakumar Swaminathan, Jeffrey R. Willis, Young Hee Yoon, Carlos Quezada-Ruiz

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
FundersRoche
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To describe the design and rationale of the phase 3 TENAYA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03823287) and LUCERNE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03823300) trials that aimed to assess efficacy, safety, and durability of faricimab, the first bispecific antibody for intraocular use, which independently binds and neutralizes both angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) versus aflibercept in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Design: Identical, global, double-masked, randomized, controlled, phase 3 clinical trials. Participants: Adults with treatment-naïve nAMD. Methods: These trials were designed to evaluate patients randomized to receive faricimab 6.0 mg up to every 16 weeks after 4 initial every-4-week doses or aflibercept 2.0 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial every-4-week doses. The initial doses in the faricimab arm were followed by individualized fixed treatment intervals up to week 60, based on disease activity assessment at weeks 20 and 24, guided by central subfield thickness, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and investigator assessment. The primary efficacy end point was BCVA change from baseline averaged over weeks 40, 44, and 48. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients receiving every-8-week, every-12-week, and every-16-week faricimab and anatomic outcomes. Safety outcomes included incidence and severity of ocular and nonocular adverse events. From week 60, faricimab-treated patients followed a personalized treatment interval (PTI), a novel protocol-driven treat-and-extend regimen with interval adjustment from every 8 weeks to every 16 weeks based on individualized treatment response measured by anatomic criteria, functional criteria, and investigator assessment of patients' disease activity. Main Outcome Measures: Rationale for trial design and PTI approach. Results: The TENAYA and LUCERNE trials were the first registrational trials in nAMD to test fixed dosing regimens up to every 16 weeks based on patients' disease activity in year 1 and incorporate a PTI paradigm during year 2. The PTI approach was designed to tailor treatment intervals to individual patient needs, to reflect clinical practice treatment practice, and to reduce treatment burden. Conclusions: The innovative trial design rationale for the TENAYA and LUCERNE trials included maximizing the benefits of angiopoietin-2 blockade through dosing up to every 16 weeks and PTI regimens based on patients' disease activity while fulfilling health authority requirements for potential registrational efforts.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.013

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 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

Citations84
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology ScienceSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207