P.025 Efficacy and safety results of the avalglucosidase alfa phase 3 COMET trial in participants with late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Phase 3 COMET trial (NCT02782741) compares avalglucosidase alfa (n=51) with alglucosidase alfa (n=49) in treatment-naïve LOPD. Methods: Primary objective: determine avalglucosidase alfa effect on respiratory muscle function. Secondary/other objectives include: avalglucosidase alfa effect on functional endurance, inspiratory/expiratory muscle strength, lower/upper extremity muscle strength, motor function, health-related quality of life, safety. Results: At Week 49, change (LSmean±SE) from baseline in upright forced vital capacity %predicted was greater with avalglucosidase alfa (2.89%±0.88%) versus alglucosidase alfa (0.46%±0.93%)(absolute difference+2.43%). The primary objective, achieving statistical non-inferiority (p=0.0074), was met. Superiority testing was borderline significant (p=0.0626). Week 49 change from baseline in 6-minute walk test was 30.01-meters greater for avalglucosidase alfa (32.21±9.93m) versus alglucosidase alfa (2.19±10.40m). Positive results for avalglucosidase alfa were seen for all secondary/other efficacy endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.3% of avalglucosidase alfa-treated and 91.8% of alglucosidase alfa-treated participants. Five participants withdrew, 4 for AEs, all on alglucosidase alfa. Serious AEs occurred in 8 avalglucosidase alfa-treated and 12 alglucosidase alfa-treated participants. IgG antidrug antibody responses were similar in both. High titers and neutralizing antibodies were more common for alglucosidase alfa. Conclusions: Results demonstrate improvements in clinically meaningful outcome measures and a more favorable safety profile with avalglucosidase alfa versus alglucosidase alfa. Funding: Sanofi Genzyme
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".