Prophylaxis escalation in severe von Willebrand disease: a prospective study from the von Willebrand Disease Prophylaxis Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of mucosal bleeding (epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and menorrhagia) and joint bleeding remains problematic in clinically severe von Willebrand disease (VWD). Patients are often unresponsive to treatment (e.g. desmopressin or antifibrinolytic therapy) and may require von Willebrand factor (VWF) replacement therapy. There are little data on the use of prophylaxis in VWD, and none have been applied in a prospective, treatment escalation design. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of escalating dose prophylaxis in severe VWD. METHODS: Patients eligible for enrollment in this prospective study included those with type 1 VWD with VW factor activity-ristocetin cofactor ratio ≤ 20% and unresponsive to desmopressin, patients with type 2 VWD not responsive to desmopressin and all subjects with type 2B and type 3 VWD. Entry criteria were strictly defined, as were therapy escalation parameters and clinical data collection. RESULTS: Eleven subjects completed the study. Six had type 2A, and five had type 3 VWD. Six patients presented with epistaxis, three with GI bleeding, and two with joint bleeding. Seven had dose escalation above the first level. Among the 10 subjects with evaluable bleeding log data, use of prophylaxis decreased the median annualized bleeding rate from 25 to 6.1 (95% confidence interval of the rate difference: -51.6 to -1.7), and the median annualized bleeding rate was even lower (4.0; 95% confidence interval: -57.5 to -5.3) when the subjects reached their final dosing level. CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective study to demonstrate that prophylaxis with VW factor concentrates is highly effective in reducing mucosal and joint bleeding rates in clinically severe VWD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".