MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2557434158 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.1518.1518

Regional Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Study of Adult Prophylaxis Versus on-Demand Treatment with Bayer’s Sucrose-Formulated Recombinant Factor VIII: 3-Year Data from Spinart

2014· article· en· W2557434158 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Pocoski, Benjamin Kim, Thomas J. Humphries, Walter Hong

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRegimenQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialPatient satisfactionPediatricsInternal medicinePhysical therapySurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: The SPINART study compared routine prophylaxis vs on-demand treatment using Bayer's sucrose-formulated recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII-FS) in adolescents and adults with severe hemophilia A. Primary results at the end of the first year of the study showed that routine prophylaxis was significantly more efficacious than on-demand treatment in decreasing bleeding episodes. Assessment of health-related quality of life from a patient perspective is an important aspect of evaluating hemophilia treatment effectiveness. Here we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including assessment of pain, activity levels, treatment satisfaction, and healthcare resource utilization as well as regional differences (US vs non-US patients) in these PROs after 3 years of treatment with rFVIII-FS. Methods: SPINART, a 3-year, randomized, controlled, open-label, multinational study, enrolled previously treated patients aged 12–50 years with severe hemophilia A with no inhibitors, no prophylaxis for >12 consecutive months in the past 5 years, and 6–24 documented bleeding events or treatments in the previous 6 months. Patients were treated with rFVIII-FS, either on-demand therapy or prophylaxis (25 IU/kg 3 times weekly, with dose escalation of 5 IU/kg permitted at years 1 and 2). PRO measures included the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Treatment Regimen Satisfaction Questionnaire, Activities List Questionnaire, and Healthcare Resource Utilization Questionnaire. The Activities List and SF-MPQ were completed at baseline and at years 1, 2, and 3. Treatment satisfaction was assessed at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36. The Healthcare Resource Utilization Questionnaire was filled out weekly via electronic patient diary. Changes from baseline to year 3 were summarized using descriptive statistics. Subgroup analyses based on region (US vs non-US [Argentina, Bulgaria, and Romania]) were also performed. Data shown are for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: The ITT population consisted of84 patients (42 prophylaxis, 42 on demand). PRO results analyzed by region at year 3 are shown in the Table. Marked reduction from baseline to year 3 was observed in SF-MPQ scores for the last 4 weeks' pain rating for both US and non-US patients receiving prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment. Activities List outcomes showed a lower proportion of US patients compared with non-US patients reporting increased physical activities and unrestricted activities at the end of the 3-year study. Overall, there was a trend toward more physical activity and fewer restrictions with prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment. Treatment satisfaction was lower in US patients compared with non-US patients at the final study visit. Healthcare resource utilization was slightly lower for the US population compared with the non-US population; overall, the prophylaxis group reported lower healthcare resource utilization compared with the on-demand treatment group. Table. Patient-Reported Outcomes at Year 3 of the SPINART Study US Patients Non-US Patients Prophylaxis (n=14) On-Demand (n=21) Prophylaxis (n=28) On-Demand (n=21) McGill Pain Questionnaire, last 4 weeks' pain rating,* mean ± SD –16.6±26.4 9.1±23.8 –17.4±22.2 –7.6±24.2 Activities List, n (%) More physical activities over the past 4 weeks 1 (7.1) 3 (14.3) 16 (57.1) 5 (23.8) Currently unrestricted activities 3 (21.4) 6 (28.6) 17 (60.7) 5 (23.8) Treatment satisfaction, n (%) Very or extremely satisfied 5 (35.7) 6 (28.5) 22 (78.5) 12 (57.1) Will continue current regimen 6 (42.9) 7 (33.3) 22 (78.6) 13 (61.9) Healthcare resource utilization, n Contact with any health care professional 152 289 149 419 Joint-related surgeries 1 4 7 10 *Change from baseline to year 3. Conclusions: Results of the 3-year SPINART study showed that patients with hemophilia A receiving rFVIII-FS prophylaxis were more active, experienced less pain, utilized fewer healthcare resources, and had better treatment satisfaction compared with those receiving on-demand treatment. Subanalyses based on region showed that non-US patients were more active and had better treatment satisfaction at year 3 compared with their US counterparts. The larger improvement in non-US patients compared with US patients may be explained by the greater degree of hemarthropathy observed at baseline in non-US patients. Disclosures Pocoski: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Kim:Bayer: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Baxter: Consultancy; Biogen: Consultancy. Humphries:Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Hong:Bayer HealthCare: Employment.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,083
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHemophilia Treatment and Research→Travaux en français237 207→