Health-Related Quality of Life with Subcutaneous C1-Inhibitor for Prevention of Attacks of Hereditary Angioedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema with C1-inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess HRQoL outcomes in patients self-administering subcutaneous C1-INH (C1-INH[SC]; HAEGARDA) for routine prevention of HAE attacks. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of data from the placebo-controlled, crossover phase III COMPACT study (Clinical Studies for Optimal Management of Preventing Angioedema with Low-Volume Subcutaneous C1-Inhibitor Replacement Therapy). Ninety patients with C1-INH-HAE were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment sequences: C1-INH(SC) 40 or 60 IU/kg twice weekly for 16 weeks, preceded or followed by 16 weeks of twice weekly placebo injections. All HAE attacks were treated with open-label on-demand treatment as necessary. HRQoL assessments at week 14 (last visit) included the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). RESULTS: Compared with placebo (on-demand treatment alone), treatment with twice weekly C1-INH(SC) (both doses combined) was associated with better EQ-5D visual analog scale general health, less HADS anxiety, less WPAI presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment, and greater TSQM effectiveness and overall treatment satisfaction. More patients self-reported a "good/excellent" response during routine prevention with C1-INH(SC) compared with on-demand only (placebo prophylaxis) management. For each HRQoL measure, a greater proportion of patients had a clinically meaningful improvement during C1-INH(SC) treatment compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with frequent HAE attacks, a treatment strategy of routine prevention with self-administered twice weekly C1-INH(SC) had a greater impact on improving multiple HAE-related HRQoL impairments, most notably anxiety and work productivity, compared with on-demand treatment alone (placebo prophylaxis).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".