Patient Preference for Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Administration with Every-6-Week Natalizumab (Tysabri®) Dosing: NOVA Phase IIIb Extension Study (Part 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Following NOVA (part 1) and the approval of the subcutaneous (SC) route of administration of natalizumab by the European Medicines Agency, an extension phase of the NOVA phase IIIb study (part 2) was initiated to collect patient preference data for SC versus intravenous (IV) dosing in patients receiving every-6-week (Q6W) dosing of natalizumab. This study was performed to evaluate patient preference for SC versus IV natalizumab administration and explore the efficacy, safety, and pharmacology characteristics of both routes of administration. METHODS: ) 300 mg via IV infusion Q6W for 36 weeks and then were randomized to 48 weeks of crossover treatment (24 weeks SC Q6W and 24 weeks IV Q6W, or vice versa). The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who indicated a preference for natalizumab SC administration on the Patient Preference Questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 153 participants were randomized in NOVA part 2. Of 123 with patient preference data, 108 (87.8%) preferred the SC route of administration for natalizumab over the IV route; 102 (82.9%) specified "requires less time in the clinic" as the reason for the SC preference. CONCLUSION: In NOVA (part 2), most participants on Q6W dosing of natalizumab preferred SC administration versus IV administration. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03689972. INFOGRAPHIC.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".