Defining extended half‐life <scp>rFVIII</scp>—A critical review of the evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent haemophilia treatment advances include new recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) products with improved pharmacokinetic (PK) properties that aim to reduce the burden of prophylaxis. These treatments are commonly referred to as extended half-life rFVIII products (EHL rFVIII). There is no uniform definition of what constitutes an EHL rFVIII. Such a definition would help physicians, patients and funders understand the properties of standard and EHL rFVIIIs and thus provide clarity when selecting an EHL in clinical settings. AIM: To critically assess the published evidence on new and emerging rFVIII products in order to propose a definition to classify EHL rFVIIIs. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and regulatory authorities (FDA/EMA/Health Canada) websites for publications and regulatory submissions describing prospective crossover PK studies evaluating rFVIIIs that demonstrate improved PK parameters in adults and adolescents with severe haemophilia A. RESULTS: Following critical analyses of the published data, we developed a holistic approach to defining rFVIIIs as EHLs, which requires all of the following: (i) using technology designed to extend rFVIII half-life; (ii) lacking bioequivalence with a standard rFVIII comparator-above the FDA/EMA cut-off of 125% for the 90% confidence intervals for area under the curve ratio; and (iii) having an extended half-life ratio measured in a PK comparator crossover study. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, a pragmatic definition of EHL rFVIII has been proposed that should provide better clarity in clinical discussions surrounding the appropriate use of rFVIII products. At present, only products using PEGylation or Fc fusion half-life extension technology meet the proposed criteria for definition of EHL rFVIII.
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 | 0.018 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".