Pharmacokinetics of plasma‐derived vs. recombinant <scp>FVIII</scp> concentrates: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only very few pharmacokinetic (PK) studies comparing plasma derived FVIII (pd-FVIII) against recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) concentrates are available. The studies have been generally conducted to demonstrate the bioequivalence of a new product with an old one. The switch from a plasma-derived FVIII (pd-FVIII) to a rFVIII concentrate is a good moment to enrol the patients in a comparative PK study. To achieve information on the PK characteristics of two different classes of FVIII concentrates, according to two different designs: a 10 FVIII concentration/time point design and a reduced 4-point design. A single dose PK comparing pd- and rFVIII concentrates has been performed in four Haemophilia Centres of Italy. Seventeen haemophilia A patients underwent two subsequent single dose PK studies at the moment of switching. Two-compartment- and Non-compartment-analysis did not show significant differences between the outcomes of PK of pd-FVIII and rFVIII, due to inter-patient variability. In vivo recovery (IVR) of rFVIII was slightly higher than that of pd-FVIII and rFVIII/pd-FVIII AUC ratio was 1.37 in 11/17 patients. The difference is only due to the initial distribution phase because after the first 10 h from the end of the infusion, the two decay curves are overlapping. The elimination half-life of the concentrates was very similar even though a complete bioequivalence was not demonstrated because of a higher AUC of rFVIII concentrates, limited to the distribution phase. The higher Cmax and IVR of rFVIII may be due to the presence of heterodimers activated forms of the recombinant molecules.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".