Pilot study of once‐a‐day prophylaxis for youth and young adults with severe haemophilia A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Standard prophylaxis has been shown to be an effective treatment for severe haemophilia A. According to pharmacokinetic principles, daily factor infusions of smaller doses can maintain similar trough factor VIII (FVIII) levels, and perhaps the same protection as standard prophylaxis. AIM: This multicentre study examined the feasibility of daily prophylaxis for youth and young adults with severe haemophilia A in Montreal and Toronto. METHODS: Bleeding rates, joint status, quality of life and physical activity were monitored for 14 patients during this study. At baseline, subjects continued their regular treatment regimen and switched to daily prophylaxis after 4 months; nine had begun daily prophylaxis before enrolment. Additional visits occurred at 8 and 12 months which included a physical examination, inhibitor testing, HJHS and FISH assessments, the CHO-KLAT/Haemo-QoL-A and PDPAR. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication ver.II and perceived difficulty questions at the end of study. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant changes in quality of life except for concerns with the demanding daily infusion schedule. The number of bleeds did not statistically differ from the initial 4 months of the study to the last 8 months. Monthly bleeding rates from the year prior to the study and during the intervention phase were not statistically different. It was also found that daily prophylaxis used 24% less FVIII compared to standard prophylaxis. Taking all of this into account, we have found that providing daily prophylaxis is feasible and that it is feasible to prospectively study daily prophylaxis in youth and young adults.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".