Haemophilia patients’ unmet needs and their expectations of the new extended half‐life factor concentrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: National Member Organisations (NMO) of persons with haemophilia (PWH) from the DACH Region (D = Germany, A = Austria, CH = Switzerland) were interested to better understand PWH's expectations and concerns of extended half-life (EHL) factor concentrates (FC) before availability in these countries. METHODS: Based on an expert meeting and focus groups conducted across Germany a survey for haemophilia patients and their parents was developed and was sent out to 2,644 PWH. RESULTS: One thousand and seven questionnaires were sent back (38.1%); 743 adults and 262 parents. Most patients had haemophilia A (84.5%), were severely affected (73.7%), received prophylaxis (57%) and used recombinant FC (60.2%). One-quarter did not know the correct half-life of their FC [HA/FVIII: 26%, HB/FIX: 31.1%]. Four percent were unsatisfied with their current FC, mainly with short half-life of FC and difficult manageability. They expected from new EHL products less frequent injections (55.2%), better efficacy (32.1%) and safety/no side effects (15.7%); 59.5% would be willing to switch to new products if they have a prolonged half-life and the same safety of the current FC. They wish more information about half-life (84.4%), possible side-effects (81.3%) and efficacy (77%) and wanted to receive information about new products from their haemophilia treater (76.3%) and the newsletter of their NMO (74.3%). Significant differences across countries were found. CONCLUSIONS: The representative survey could show that although PWH were generally satisfied with their current FC, the majority would be willing to switch to EHL products assuming half-life is prolonged and has the same safety of the current FC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".