Prophylaxis in severe forms of von Willebrand's disease: results from the von Willebrand Disease Prophylaxis Network (VWD PN)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bleeding patterns of severe von Willebrand's disease (VWD) adversely affect quality of life, and may be life threatening. There is a presumed role for prophylaxis with VWF-containing concentrates, but data are scarce. The von Willebrand Disease Prophylaxis Network (VWD PN) was formed to investigate the role of prophylaxis in clinically severe VWD that is not responsive to other treatment(s).Using a retrospective design, the effect of prophylaxis was studied. Availability of records to document, or reliably assess, the type and frequency of bleeding episodes prior to, and after, the initiation of prophylaxis was required. Annualized bleeding rates were calculated for the period prior to prophylaxis, during prophylaxis and by primary bleeding indication defined as the site accounting for more than half of all bleeding symptoms. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test of differences in the medians was used. Sixty-one subjects from 20 centres in 10 countries were enrolled. Data for 59 were used in the analysis. The median age at onset of prophylaxis was 22.4 years. Type 3 VWD accounted for the largest number (N = 34, 57.6%). Differences in bleeding rates within individuals during compared with before prophylaxis were significant for the total group (P < 0.0001), and for those with primary bleeding indications of epistaxis (P = 0.0005), joint bleeding (P = 0.002) and GI bleeding (P = 0.001). The effect of prophylaxis was similar among those age < 18 years and those ≥ 18. One person developed an inhibitor during treatment. We conclude that prophylactic treatment of VWD is efficacious.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".