A prospective study of health‐related quality of life of boys with severe haemophilia A in China: comparing on‐demand to prophylaxis treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Treatment for boys with haemophilia in China is rapidly improving; however, comprehensive outcomes have not been examined prospectively. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of short-term full-dose prophylaxis compared to on-demand treatment, on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL) of boys with severe haemophilia A (HA) in China. METHODS: Boys with severe HA (FVIII<1%) completed 3 months of on-demand treatment and 3 months of full-dose prophylaxis (25 FVIII IU per kg 3x per week). The primary outcomes were child- and parent-reported Canadian Hemophilia Outcomes - Kids Life Assessment Tool (CHO-KLAT) scores. The number and type of bleeds and Activities Scale for Kids (ASK) scores were also recorded. RESULTS: Analyses included 23 boys between 4 and 15.9 years of age. The number of bleeds decreased by 94% on prophylaxis (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test). The mean child-reported CHO-KLAT scores for boys ≥7 years (n = 20) was 61.4 (±10.9) during on-demand treatment and 61.9 (±11.4) following short-term prophylaxis (P = 0.72, paired t-test). The mean parent-reported CHO-KLAT score during the on-demand phase was 54.4 (±10.5) with an increase of 3.8 points (±8.1; P = 0.04, paired t-test) following prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Child-reported CHO-KLAT scores were lower in boys with severe HA in China than reported in countries with access to full-dose prophylaxis. Boys reported higher HR-QoL scores than their parents. Small improvements in ASK scores were noted following the prophylaxis phase. These changes were only significant in the parent-reported CHO-KLAT scores. Longer term prospective clinical trials are needed in China to determine the impact of prophylaxis on HR-QoL in boys with severe HA.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".