MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224952647 · doi:10.1111/hae.14563

Eptacog beta efficacy and safety in the treatment and control of bleeding in paediatric subjects (<12 years) with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors

2022· article· en· W4224952647 on OpenAlexaff
Steven W. Pipe, Cédric Hermans, Meera Chitlur, 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, Guy Young, W. Allan Alexander, Daniel Bonzo, Christopher Macie, Ian S. Mitchell, Evelyne Sauty, Thomas A. Wilkinson, Amy D. Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHaemophiliaHaemophilia AAdverse effectDosingRegimenHaemophilia BClinical trialInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Eptacog beta is a new recombinant activated human factor VII bypassing agent approved in the United States for the treatment and control of bleeding in patients with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors 12 years of age or older. AIM: To prospectively assess in a phase 3 clinical trial (PERSEPT 2) eptacog beta efficacy and safety for treatment of bleeding in children <12 years of age with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors. METHODS: Using a randomised crossover design, subjects received initial doses of 75 or 225 μg/kg eptacog beta followed by 75 μg/kg dosing at predefined intervals (as determined by clinical response) to treat bleeding episodes (BEs). Treatment success criteria included a haemostasis evaluation of 'excellent' or 'good' without use of additional eptacog beta, alternative haemostatic agent or blood product, and no increase in pain following the first 'excellent' or 'good' assessment. RESULTS: Treatment success proportions in 25 subjects (1-11 years) who experienced 546 mild or moderate BEs were 65% in the 75 μg/kg initial dose regimen (IDR) and 60% in the 225 μg/kg IDR 12 h following initial eptacog beta infusion. By 24 h, the treatment success proportions were 97% for the 75 μg/kg IDR and 98% for the 225 μg/kg IDR. No thrombotic events, allergic reactions, neutralising antibodies or treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Both 75 and 225 μg/kg eptacog beta IDRs provided safe and effective treatment and control of bleeding in children <12 years of age.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207