Association of peak factor <scp>VIII</scp> levels and area under the curve with bleeding in patients with haemophilia A on every third day pharmacokinetic‐guided prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We previously showed that pharmacokinetic-guided prophylaxis (PKP) allows the dosing interval to be extended while maintaining a specific trough level. However, the associations of peak factor VIII (FVIII) levels and area under the curve (AUC) with breakthrough bleeding have not been investigated. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyse data from the PKP arm to determine whether peak FVIII levels, AUC and time with FVIII levels in a haemostatically effective range are independent predictors of bleeding during prophylaxis. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the association of FVIII levels and AUC with annualized bleeding rate in 34 patients on PKP. RESULTS: During 1 year of PKP, 131 bleeding episodes occurred in 24/34 patients. Average peak FVIII levels ranged from 24 to 168 IU dL(-1) , with higher values associated with a decreased risk for all bleeding (joint and non-joint; P < 0.01) and joint bleeding (P < 0.01). Following rFVIII infusion, median percent of time spent with FVIII levels >20 IU dL(-1) was 22%; median AUC was 1363. Both values were significantly associated with a lower ABR when targeting a 1% trough at 72 h. CONCLUSION: When PKP was administered every third day, higher peak FVIII levels, higher AUC and more time spent per week with FVIII levels >20 IU dL(-1) provided increased protection from joint and non-joint bleeding. These data highlight the potential impact of variability in individual pharmacokinetic and bleeding risk and support the need for high peak levels and AUC in some patients treated every third day. The findings do not necessarily apply to alternate-day or other prophylactic dosing regimens.
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) | 0.000 | 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".