A prospective surveillance study of inhibitor development in haemophilia A patients following a population switch to a third‐generation B‐domain‐deleted recombinant factor <scp>VIII</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Following a provincial tender, most subjects with haemophilia A in Quebec switched their treatment to a third-generation recombinant B-domain-deleted factor VIII (FVIII). AIM: Our objective was to evaluate the incidence of inhibitor development and FVIII recovery in patients following the switch of factor replacement therapy. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-five subjects were enrolled and tested for FVIII activity and inhibitors every 6 months during 1 year. Subjects with mild haemophilia A or current inhibitors were excluded. Data on demographics, bleeds and FVIII usage were collected. RESULTS: A total of 125 switchers and 10 non-switchers were enrolled. Most subjects had severe haemophilia A (95.6%) and were on prophylaxis (89.6%). Mean FVIII recovery was similar at 0, 6 and 12 months postswitch. Two switchers developed de novo inhibitors in the 6 months postswitch, one of which was transient. No recurrent inhibitor was observed. A small but significant increase in FVIII usage was observed for adult switchers and the whole cohort of switchers and non-switchers. There was an increase in the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for non-joint bleeds for the whole cohort of switchers. However, no significant differences were observed in ABR for joint bleeds. CONCLUSION: Our surveillance study shows comparable inhibitor development to similar published studies. A significant increase in FVIII utilization was noted for the whole cohort, switchers and non-switchers. Lastly, no clinically significant changes were observed in ABR for joint bleeds, but a difference for non-joint bleed ABRs was observed in switchers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".