MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2912196844 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-118069

Final Results from a Non-Interventional Safety and Efficacy Study of a VWF/FVIII Concentrate (wilate®) in Patients with Von Willebrand Disease

2018· article· en· W2912196844 sur OpenAlexaff
Hassan M. Yaish, Maria Sol Cruz, Kay Decker, Eva Zetterberg, Sylvia Werner, Mariko Hashimoto, Sigurd Knaub, George M. Rodgers

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineTolerabilityVon Willebrand diseasePopulationInternal medicineClinical trialHaemophiliaAdverse effectVon Willebrand factorPediatricsSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Post-marketing studies provide important insight into the consistency of data from clinical studies and routine clinical use. This non-interventional, prospective, multicentre study (WIL-20) collected real-life data on the use of a human VWF/FVIII concentrate with the native VWF/FVIII complex in a physiological 1:1 ratio (wilate®; pdVWF/FVIII) in routine clinical practice. Here, we report the final results from this study. Methods: The primary objective was to document the safety and tolerability of pdVWF/FVIII in routine clinical practice, with a planned observation period per patient of 2 years. Secondary objectives were to document the efficacy in on-demand treatment of acute bleeding, long-term prophylaxis, and surgical prophylaxis. Male and female patients of any age and with any type of VWD who were prescribed pdVWF/FVIII were eligible for the study. pdVWF/FVIII was administered at the investigator's discretion. Data recorded included patient demographics, laboratory parameters, treatment details, and occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including immunogenicity and thrombogenicity. Tolerability was assessed using a verbal rating scale; efficacy of on-demand treatment and surgical prophylaxis using a haemostatic scale; and prophylactic efficacy based on the frequency of spontaneous breakthrough bleeds. Results: The study enrolled 120 patients from 11 countries. Within the safety population (111 patients who received at least one dose of pdVWF/FVIII), 45% of patients had type 1 VWD, 29% type 2 and 18% type 3; disease type was unavailable for 8 patients, and 1 patient was diagnosed with haemophilia A during the study. Of the 111 patients, 33% were previously untreated with a FVIII/VWF product. A total of 7024 infusions were administered to the safety population over a median observation time of 2 years; median dose was 320.5 IU/kg. A total of 26 ADRs were reported in 8 patients; 4 were mild, 3 moderate and 1 severe. Three patients discontinued treatment and 1 stopped treatment temporarily due to adverse events. Using an experimental assay, 3 cases of VWF inhibitors were identified, with no impact on clinical outcome. No thromboembolic events were reported. Tolerability was rated for 6497 infusions, with 96.2% rated 'excellent', 3.7% 'satisfactory', and 0.1% 'unsatisfactory'. Of the 29 patients treated on-demand, 150 bleeding events (BEs), excluding menstrual bleeds, were reported in 25 patients; 18% of BEs were mild, 71.3% were moderate, and 10% were severe. 94% of treated bleeds (130/138) resolved with 1 or 2 infusions, with a median dose per BE of 33 IU/kg. The efficacy of treatment was rated as 'excellent' or 'good' for 100% of BEs. Of the 25 patients treated with pdVWF/FVIII for prophylaxis, 18 patients had a total of 233 breakthrough BEs; 37% mild, 44% moderate, and 9% severe (severity information was unavailable for 11% of bleeds). Of the breakthrough BEs that required treatment, 85% (149/175) were treated with 1 or 2 infusions of pdVWF/FVIII, with a median dose per BE of 55.4 IU/kg. Efficacy of pdVWF/FVIII was rated as 'excellent' or 'good' by investigators for 99% of 139 evaluable breakthrough BEs. For patients on prophylaxis (n = 25), the median annualised bleeding rate for spontaneous BEs was 1.5 (range 0.0-19.7). The efficacy of prophylaxis for prevention of spontaneous breakthrough bleeds was rated as 'excellent' or 'good' in 96% (24/25) of these patients. A total of 99 surgical procedures were performed in 62 patients; 56% with type 1 VWD, 29% type 2 and 13% type 3 (2% were type unknown). Of the procedures, 46 were major and 53 minor. All but one of the surgeries were managed with pdVWF/FVIII prophylaxis, and the efficacy was rated as 'excellent' or 'good' in 99% (96/97) of surgeries with assessments available. Conclusions: The final results of this non-interventional study indicate that pdVWF/FVIII is well tolerated and effective for on-demand treatment, prophylaxis, and surgical prophylaxis in patients with all types of VWD treated as part of routine clinical practice. The data are consistent with those from previous clinical studies and provide real-life evidence from around the world on the use of pdVWF/FVIIIfor management of VWD in all clinical settings. Disclosures Werner: Octapharma USA Inc.: Employment. Hashimoto:Octapharma USA Inc.: Employment. Knaub:Octapharma AG: Employment. Rodgers:Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

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)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
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: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,242
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · 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

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→