Patient powered prophylaxis: A 12‐month study of individualized prophylaxis in adults with severe haemophilia A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adults with severe haemophilia A (SHA) may experience breakthrough bleeds despite standard weight-based FVIII prophylaxis three times weekly. Individualized prophylaxis has evolved to optimize patient outcomes. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a standardized approach to individualized prophylaxis on annualized bleeding rates (ABR), factor utilization, physical activity and quality of life in adults with SHA. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients with baseline FVIII:C <2% and ABR >3 on weight-based prophylaxis received a standardized approach to individualized prophylaxis. Changes in ABR, annualized FVIII consumption and adherence from the 12-month prestudy and 12-month intervention period were compared. Changes in Haemo-QoL-A total score, Physical Functioning (PF) subscale and physical activity level measured by accelerometry were also examined. RESULTS: Eighteen patients participated (median age 26 years). Individualized prophylaxis decreased total bleeds in the population by 69% and traumatic bleeds by 73%. The median ABR decreased from 7.5 to 2 (P<.001). Annualized factor consumption increased by 7.3%, as a result of 66% reduction in factor utilization for treatment of bleeds and 25% increase in factor utilization for prophylaxis. Adherence scores for frequency and dosing did not change. There was a significant increase in the Haemo-QoL-A total score (P=.02) and PF score (P=.01) from baseline to 4 months but no change in physical activity. CONCLUSION: Patients with SHA who switched from standard to individualized prophylaxis show reduced ABR and increased FVIII consumption, and also improved their health-related quality of life. The mechanism is independent of adherence to prescribed prophylactic regimen.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".