Vaccinations are not associated with inhibitor development in boys with severe haemophilia A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inhibitor development in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe haemophilia A is a multifactorial event. It is unknown whether paediatric vaccinations given in close proximity to factor VIII (FVIII) are associated with inhibitor development. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether paediatric vaccinations in close proximity to FVIII within the first 75 exposure days (EDs) are associated with inhibitor development in PUPs with severe haemophilia A. METHODS: We included 375 PUPs with severe haemophilia A (<0.01 IU/mL) from the PedNet Registry who had received vaccinations between the first and 75th ED or inhibitor development. Inhibitor risk was compared between patients who did and who did not receive vaccinations within 24, 72 or 120 hours of FVIII infusion. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios were calculated for any or repeated vaccinations in close proximity to FVIII, using Cox regression. RESULTS: Inhibitor development occurred in 77 of 375 patients (20.5%). Overall inhibitor development appeared similar or lower in patients receiving vaccinations in close proximity to FVIII as compared to patients receiving vaccinations without FVIII: for 24 hours, this was 19.2% and 21.4% (P = .186), for 72 hours, 16.4% and 27.3% (P = .023) and for 120 hours, 18.3% and 25.0% (P = .085), respectively. CONCLUSION: We found no association between vaccinations given in close proximity to FVIII exposure within the first 75 EDs and inhibitor development. Our data do not support avoiding administration of FVIII at time of routine vaccinations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".