Recombinant Factor IX Recovery and Inhibitor Safety: A Canadian Post-licensure Surveillance Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Canadian post-licensure surveillance on the safety of recombinant factor IX (rFIX. BeneFIX), factor IX recovery and inhibitor development were studied. The recovery following rFIX infusion in 126 patients (mean = 0.77, median 0.72, range 0.36-1.85, 95% CI of mean 0.74-0.81, expressed as FIX activity increase in U/dL per IU FIX concentrate/kg body weight infused) was significantly lower than that following the last plasma-derived factor IX (pdFIX) infusion in 74 patients (mean 1.05, median 1.00, range 0.37-2.29, 95% CI of mean 0.99-0.97). The recovery for rFIX for patients aged < or =15 years (n = 41, mean recovery 0.64) and that for patients aged >15 years (n = 85, mean 0.84) was each significantly lower than that for pdFIX (aged < or =15 years: n = 21, mean recovery 0.91; aged >15 years: n = 53, mean recovery 1.10). For both rFIX and pdFIX concentrates, the recovery was lower in patients < or =15 years of age compared to those > 15 years of age. Similar data and conclusions were obtained on 66 patients with paired recovery data from rFIX and pdFIX. Overall, our data are similar to those obtained in formal clinical trials. Two of 244 patients treated with rFIX for up to 5 years have developed de novo inhibitors associated with anaphylaxis, an incidence that is similar to that reported for pdFIX. No other serious adverse events, including thrombotic episodes, were reported. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first formal report of recovery and inhibitor formation on rFIX in a peer-reviewed manuscript form.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".