MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4141662: Study of Angiogenic Cell Therapy for Progressive Pulmonary Hypertension: Intervention with Repeat dosing of eNOS-enhanced EPCs: the SAPPHIRE Trial

2024· article· en· W4404363453 on OpenAlexaff
Duncan Stewart, Sanjay S. Mehta, George Chandy, Naushad Hirani, Nathan Hambly, John R. Swiston, Kim Danovitch, Monica Taljaard, Dean Fergusson, Antonio Giulivi, David W. Courtman

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnosDosingPulmonary hypertensionInternal medicineClinical trialCardiologyNitric oxideNitric oxide synthase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), widespread pruning of the lung distal arterial bed leads to increased vascular resistance, right heart failure and death. Currently, there are no available therapies designed to revascularize the lung. We assessed the effects of autologous, angiogenic endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) transfected with endothelial NO synthase (eNOS) in PAH patients receiving available standard-of-care therapies in a 12-month randomized, controlled trial (RCT; NCT03001414). Patients were randomized to receive a course of 4 monthly infusions over the first 6 months consisting of placebo (Arm 1) or eNOS-EPCs (20M cells; Arms 2 and 3) at 0, 1, 2 and 3 months, for a total 80M cells. After 6 months, Arm 1 crossed over to cell infusions, Arm 2 to placebo, whereas Arm 3 received a second course of eNOS-EPCs (total 160M cells). The primary endpoint was change in 6MWD (baseline to 6 months) between patients receiving eNOS-EPCs vs. placebo. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic the trial was stopped after only 12 of the planned 45 patients were enrolled (5 placebo, 7 cells). While small sample size precluded appropriately powered analyses, a qualitative difference was seen between the eNOS-EPC and placebo groups over the first 6 months (Figure), with a 2-fold greater proportion of patients achieving a 35-meter increase in 6MWD in the cell therapy group (40% vs. 20%, resp). As well, these improvements coincided with cell delivery in all 3 Arms, with a sustained increase in 6MWD over 12 months after a single course of cells in the first 6 months (Arm 2). Treatment with eNOS-EPCs was well tolerated; however, an isolated decrease in 6MWD was apparent 1 month after the first infusion of the second course of cell therapy in Arm 3 patients, with full recovery by the end of the course. This raises the possibility of an immune response to rechallenging patients with this autologous cell product, despite the absence of any clinical indicators, which will be explored by analysis of immune biomarkers. Therefore, the results of the SAPPHIRE trial suggest possible clinical benefit of a single course of 4 infusions of eNOS-EPCs in PAH patients receiving cell therapy and support the performance of a larger RCT.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→