Direct comparison of two extended half-life PEGylated recombinant FVIII products: a randomized, crossover pharmacokinetic study in patients with severe hemophilia A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An open-label, crossover randomized study was performed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of damoctocog alfa pegol and rurioctocog alfa pegol, two recombinant factor VIII (FVIII) products indicated in patients with hemophilia A, both conjugated to polyethylene glycol to reduce clearance and extend time in circulation. Adult patients (N = 18) with severe hemophilia A (FVIII < 1 IU/dL), previously treated with any FVIII product for ≥ 150 exposure days, were randomized to receive a single 50 IU/kg infusion of damoctocog alfa pegol followed by rurioctocog alfa pegol, or vice versa, with ≥ 7-day washout between doses. FVIII activity was measured using the one-stage clotting assay. PK parameters, including area under the curve from time 0 to the last data point (AUC0–tlast, primary parameter), dose-normalized AUC (AUCnorm), and time to threshold, were calculated based on 11 time points between 0.25 and 120 h post-dose and evaluated using a noncompartmental model. Due to differences in batch-specific vial content used for the study, actual administered median doses were 54.3 IU/kg for damoctocog alfa pegol and 61.4 IU/kg for rurioctocog alfa pegol. Based on actual dosing, a significantly higher geometric mean (coefficient of variation [%CV]) AUCnorm was observed for damoctocog alfa pegol (43.8 h kg/dL [44.0]) versus rurioctocog alfa pegol (36.0 h kg/dL [40.1, P < 0.001]). Based on population PK modeling, median time to reach 1 IU/dL was 16 h longer for damoctocog alfa pegol compared with rurioctocog alfa pegol. No adverse events or any immunogenicity signals were observed. Overall, damoctocog alfa pegol had a superior PK profile versus rurioctocog alfa pegol. Trial registration number: NCT04015492 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). Date of registration: July 9, 2019
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".