MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3212209742 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-147434

Eptacog Beta Efficacy in Children and Adolescents with Hemophilia A or B and Inhibitors: Subset Analysis Suggests Improved Caregiver Capacity to Assess Bleeding Episode Resolution with Subject Age

2021· article· en· W3212209742 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Young, Steven W. Pipe, Cédric Hermans, Manuel Carção, Giancarlo Castaman, Joanna A. Davis, Jonathan M. Ducore, Amy L. Dunn, Miguel A. Escobar, Janna M. Journeycake, Osman Khan, Johnny Mahlangu, Shannon L. Meeks, Ismail Mitha, Claude Négrier, Ulrike Nowak‐Göttl, Michael Recht, Tammuella Chrisentery-Singleton, Oleksandra Stasyshyn, Kateryna Vilchevska, Laura Villarreal‐Martínez, Michael Wang, Jerzy Windyga, W. Allan Alexander, Ahmad Al‐Sabbagh, Daniel Bonzo, Christopher Macie, Ian S. Mitchell, Thomas A. Wilkinson, Amy D. Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHaemophiliaPediatricsBleedPopulationConfidence intervalInternal medicineClinical trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Following treatment with a bypassing agent, parents or caregivers often face difficulties in determining bleeding episode (BE) resolution in children with hemophilia A or B and inhibitors (CwHABI), potentially contributing to a longer treatment duration in children as compared to adults (Valentino et al, Haemophilia 2012; 18:554-60. Gruppo et al, Haemophilia 2013; 19:524-32). Eptacog beta is a new recombinant activated human factor VII proven to be safe and effective for the treatment and control of BEs in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors (≥12 years of age). The pivotal phase 3 trial (PERSEPT 1; NCT02020369) included subjects from ages 12 to <18 years, in addition to adult subjects. A subsequent phase 3 trial (PERSEPT 2; NCT02448680) further examined the safety and efficacy of eptacog beta for bleed treatment in CwHABI <12 years of age. Within this population, we hypothesized that caregivers could better ascertain treatment success in older children, which would manifest as increasing eptacog beta efficacy measurements and tighter 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with increasing subject age. We explored this question by analyzing BE treatment success in three age subgroups within PERSEPT 1 and PERSEPT 2. Aims The study objective is to evaluate and compare the clinical response to eptacog beta for BEs in CwHABI at 12 and 24 hours after initial dose of eptacog beta in 3 pediatric age subgroups (<6 years, 6 to <12 years, and 12 to <18 years). Methods PERSEPT 1 and PERSEPT 2 were prospective, global, open-label trials of eptacog beta using two initial dose regimens (IDRs) of 75 and 225 µg/kg in a randomized, non-blinded, crossover design. Subjects received initial doses of 75 or 225 µg/kg eptacog beta followed by 75 µg/kg dosing at predefined intervals (determined by clinical response) to treat BEs (Figure 1). Treatment success for mild or moderate BEs was defined as obtaining a hemostasis evaluation of "excellent" or "good" with no use of additional eptacog beta, alternative hemostatic agents or blood products, and no increase in pain following the first "excellent" or "good" assessment. Evaluations were provided by the parent/caregiver in conjunction with the study participant when possible, depending upon subject age and verbal capacity. Written informed consent from the participants' parents/legal guardians were obtained at enrollment. Results Thirty subjects were assessed (25 from PERSEPT 2 [13 subjects, 0 to <6 years; 12 subjects, 6 to <12 years] and 5 from PERSEPT 1 [ages 12 to <18 years]). These subjects experienced 628 mild/moderate BEs. No subject was receiving emicizumab prophylaxis. Nearly all BEs in every pediatric age subgroup were successfully treated by 24 hours after initial eptacog beta infusion (Figure 2). At 12 hours, BE treatment success proportions in the 0 to <6 year, 6 to <12 year, and 12 to <18 year subgroups for the 75 µg/kg IDR were 58%, 72%, and 93%, respectively. Corresponding treatment success proportions for the 225 µg/kg IDR in the 0 to <6 year, 6 to <12 year, and 12 to <18 year subgroups were 58%, 63%, and 89%, respectively. The increased treatment success proportions seen for the 12 to <18 year subgroup over those seen for the 0 to <6 year and 6 to <12 year subgroups were statistically significant for both IDRs (p < 0.05; Figure 2). Differences in treatment success between the 0 to <6 year and 6 to <12-year subgroups were not statistically significant for either IDR. Treatment success point estimates at 12 hours in the 0 to <6 years age group showed the widest CIs among the various subgroups (Figure 2). Conclusions Eptacog beta treatment of BEs in this pediatric population yielded remarkable (>95%) treatment success proportions in both IDRs by 24 hours after initial eptacog beta infusion of 75 or 225 µg/kg. Differing age group pharmacokinetics could contribute to the observed increase in treatment efficacy at 12 hours with increasing subject age. In addition, when taken together with the wide CIs associated with treatment success point estimates at 12 hours for the 0 to <6 year subgroup, these results are consistent with well-known challenges that drive pediatric dosing of bypassing agents: chiefly, that of caregivers experiencing uncertainty with regard to BE resolution in young children. The high efficacy and narrow 95% CIs seen at 24 hours further indicate that caregivers had achieved clarity regarding BE resolution by the 24-hour timepoint. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Young: Apcintex, BioMarin, Genentech/Roche, Grifols, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rani, Sanofi Genzyme, Spark, Takeda, and UniQure: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche, Grifols, and Takeda: Research Funding. Pipe: Catalyst Biosciences: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy; Freeline: Consultancy, Other: Clinical trial investigator; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Other; Sangamo Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Other; Takeda: Consultancy; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; uniQure: Consultancy, Other; Regeneron/ Intellia: Consultancy; Genventiv: Consultancy; Grifols: Consultancy; Biomarin: Consultancy, Other: Clinical trial investigator; Bayer: Consultancy; ASC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Apcintex: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy. Carcao: Bayer, Bioverativ/Sanofi, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Shire/Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer, Bioverativ/Sanofi, CSL Behring, Grifols, LFB, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, and Shire/Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Castaman: Uniqure: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Sobi: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria; Kedrion: Honoraria; LFB: Honoraria; Grifols: Honoraria; Werfen: Honoraria; Biomarin: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria. Davis: Genentech, Spark Therapeutics, BioMarin, Bayer: Consultancy; Takeda, Sanofi: Honoraria; Genentech, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ducore: Octapharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dunn: Sanofi, Takeda, Freeline, BioMarin, ATHN, Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Genentech, Kedrion, CSL Behring, BioMarin: Consultancy; UniQure, CSL Behring, World Federation of Hemophilia USA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria. Journeycake: HEMA Biologics: Honoraria; LFB: Honoraria. Khan: Genentech, Octapharma, BioMarin, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, Kedrion, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mahlangu: Bayer, Biogen, BioMarin, CSL, Novo Nordisk, Sobi, Roche, and UniQure: Research Funding; Amgen, Bayer, Biotest, Biogen, Baxalta, CSL Behring, Catalyst Biosciences, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Spark: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam, Bayer, Biotest, Biogen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sobi, Shire, Roche, ISTH, and WFH: Speakers Bureau. Meeks: Sangamo Therapeutics: Consultancy; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; National Hemophilia Foundation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Hemophilia of Georgia: Research Funding; National Institutes of Health: Research Funding. Négrier: UniQure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi-Sobi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spark: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Recht: Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders, Partners in Bleeding Disorders: Speakers Bureau; uniQure: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Kedrion: Consultancy; Hema Biologics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Catalyst Biosciences: Consultancy; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Current Employment; Oregon Health & Science University: Current Employment. Chrisentery-Singleton: Biomarin: Speakers Bureau; Spark: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kedrion: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; H

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→