MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281671159 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2022-abn.269

241  Intrathecal antisense oligonucleotide delivery in HD: experience from RG6042 programme and best practice considerations

2022· article· en· W4281671159 on OpenAlexaff
Blair R. Leavitt, Edward J. Wild, Jee Bang, Anne Smith, Valerie Schlegel, Scott Schobel, Alessia Nicotra, G. Bernhard Landwehrmeyer, Sarah J. Tabrizi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrathecalMedicineCerebrospinal fluidLumbar punctureSpinal cordSubarachnoid spaceDrug deliveryAnesthesiaPharmacologyInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrathecal administration involves the introduction of a drug substance into the subarachnoid space of the spinal column through a needle inserted into the lower back via lumbar puncture (LP) or via a special device. This procedure is used when drugs cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. Once injected, drugs are distributed within the cerebrospinal fluid from which they can access target tissues in spinal cord and brain. We use the intrathecal route to deliver RG6042 (previously HTTRx), an investigational, huntingtin mRNA- targeting antisense oligonucleotide to patients with Huntington’s disease (HD). Experience on intrathe- cal administration via LP has been gained in the RG6042 clinical development programme, including the double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending dose, Phase I/IIa study ( NCT02519036 ) in 46 patients with early manifest HD and an open-label extension ( NCT03342053 ) where patients received 120 mg RG6042 monthly or every other month in a 62-week treatment period (total procedures ≥400 in the programme to date). We will report on the experience with intrathecal drug delivery across these two studies and present information on suggested best practices in HD. Procedure-related videos will be shared, including use of spinal ultrasound. Finally, we will describe real-world considerations of implementing intrathecally delivered therapies in the clinical interface. alessia.nicotra@roche.com

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207