Long‐term immunogenicity, efficacy and tolerability of simoctocog alfa in patients with severe haemophilia A who had completed the NuProtect study in previously untreated patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ) in 108 previously untreated patients with severe haemophilia A planned to be treated for ≥100 exposure days or up to 5 years. The NuProtect-Extension study collected long-term prophylaxis data in children with severe haemophilia A. METHODS: Patients who completed the NuProtect study according to the protocol were eligible for the NuProtect-Extension study, a prospective, multinational, non-controlled, Phase 3b study. RESULTS: Of 48 patients who entered the extension study, 47 (median age 2.8 years) received prophylaxis with simoctocog alfa for a median of 24 months, with 82%-88% on a twice-weekly or less regimen. No patient developed FVIII inhibitors during the extension study. The median (IQR) annualized bleeding rate (ABR) during prophylaxis was 0 (0-0.5) for spontaneous bleeding episodes (BEs) and 1.00 (0-1.95) for all BEs. ABRs estimated using a negative binomial model were .28 (95% CI: .15, .53) for spontaneous and 1.62 (95% CI: 1.09, 2.42) for all BEs. During the median follow-up of 24 months, 34 (72%) patients had zero spontaneous BEs and 46 (98%) had zero spontaneous joint BEs. Efficacy in treating BEs was excellent or good for 78.2% of rated BEs, and efficacy of surgical prophylaxis was excellent for two rated surgeries. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: No FVIII inhibitors developed during long-term prophylaxis in the NuProtect-Extension study. Prophylaxis with simoctocog alfa was efficacious and well-tolerated, and is therefore an attractive long-term option for children with severe haemophilia A.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".