Safety of Switching Factor VIII Products in the Era of Evolving Concentrates: Myths and Facts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in the development of factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates offer patients with hemophilia the opportunity to switch to products considered safer or with improved properties. In some cases, product switch occurs due to side effects, convenience issues, or economic reasons affecting clinical choices. Reluctance to change FVIII concentrates is shown by patients and also by their physicians, because of concerns in particular about the risk of inhibitor development. A literature review was performed to retrieve the best evidence regarding safety issues of switching FVIII concentrate in patients with severe hemophilia A. Product switch was not associated with an increased inhibitor risk in four studies in patients during the first 50 to 75 exposure days, or in three studies reporting national switches in Canada and United Kingdom. The latter, the only available study comparing switcher and nonswitcher patients, showed an inhibitor incidence similar to that historically reported in the United Kingdom. In 16 phase III clinical trials and 6 postmarketing studies of FVIII concentrates, few de novo inhibitors were detected in previously treated patients, mostly transient and low-titer, with some additional recurrent inhibitors in patients with previous positive testing. On the whole, although rigorous controlled studies are lacking, literature data do not support increased risk of inhibitor development or other safety issues related to product switch. Therefore, in the presence of clinical needs, the advantages of switching FVIII products should not be missed because of perceived more than evidence-based challenges, in particular in this era of products with improved properties recently introduced or available in few years. Caution, however, is suggested in patients with high inhibitor risk, including in those in concomitance with surgery or intensive treatment. A careful inhibitor testing prior to and after product switch is always needed, to identify real de novo inhibitors and to gather further information in the current evolving scenario, in particular comparing switch and nonswitch patients.
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 | 0.027 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| 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".