MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S303: A PHASE 3 STUDY (ATLAS-PPX) TO EVALUATE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FITUSIRAN IN PEOPLE WITH HAEMOPHILIA A OR B WHO HAVE SWITCHED FROM PRIOR CLOTTING FACTOR CONCENTRATE OR BYPASSING AGENT PROPHYLAXIS

2023· article· en· W4386021597 on OpenAlexaff
Gili Kenet, Beatrice Nolan, Bülent Zülfikar, Bülent Antmen, Peter Kampmann, Tadashi Matsushita, Chur-Woo You, Kateryna Vilchevska, Catherine N. Bag, Azizan Sharif, Flora Peyvandi, Guy Young, Claude Négrier, Christian Sussebach, Fadi Shammas, Shauna Andersson, Baisong Mei, Kaan Kavaklı

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityHaemophiliaHaemophilia BAdverse effectClotting factorHaemophilia AClinical endpointInternal medicineSurgeryClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Fitusiran, a subcutaneous (SC) investigational siRNA therapeutic, targets antithrombin to rebalance haemostasis in people with haemophilia A or B (PwHA/B), irrespective of inhibitor status. In previous Phase 3 trials, once-monthly fitusiran prophylaxis significantly reduced annualised bleeding rate (ABR) in PwHA/B, with or without inhibitors versus episodic/on-demand treatment. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fitusiran versus prior clotting factor concentrate (CFC)/bypassing agent (BPA) prophylaxis in PwHA/B, with or without inhibitors. Methods: This Phase 3, multinational, open-label study (NCT03549871) included males aged ≥12 years with hemophilia A or B, with or without inhibitors, who had prior CFC/BPA prophylaxis. Participants continued CFC/BPA prophylaxis (6 months) before switching to once-monthly 80 mg SC fitusiran prophylaxis (7 months). Primary endpoint was ABR in the CFC/BPA prophylaxis period (Day 168 to Day 1) and fitusiran efficacy period (Day 29 to Day 190). Secondary endpoints included spontaneous ABR (AsBR), joint ABR (AjBR), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Safety and tolerability were assessed. Results: Of 80 enrolled participants, 65 (inhibitor/non-inhibitor, n=19/46; haemophilia A/haemophilia B, n=50/15) were eligible for ABR analyses. Median observed (IQR) ABRs were 4.4 (2.2; 10.9) with CFC/BPA and 0.0 (0.0; 2.3) with fitusiran prophylaxis; 41 participants (63.1%) experienced zero treated bleeds with fitusiran. Fitusiran achieved statistically significant reductions in estimated ABR, AsBR and AjBR versus CFC/BPA prophylaxis (Table 1). Fitusiran significantly improved HRQoL versus CFC/BPA as measured by Haem-A-QOL total score (LS mean difference -4.6 [95% CI: -7.6; -1.5; p<0.01]). Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 5/65 participants (7.7%) with CFC/BPA and 9/67 (13.4%) with fitusiran prophylaxis. A total of 17 (25.4%) participants experienced alanine aminotransferase or aspartate transaminase elevations >3x the upper limit of normal in the fitusiran prophylaxis period. Two participants (3.0%) experienced suspected or confirmed thromboembolic events with fitusiran. Summary/Conclusion: Once-monthly fitusiran prophylaxis significantly reduced bleeding versus CFC/BPA prophylaxis with a median ABR of zero in PwHA/B with and without inhibitors, resulting in a meaningful improvement in HRQoL. Reported AEs were generally consistent with previously identified risks of fitusiran.Keywords: Hemophilia

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemaSphereSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207