Desmopressin in non‐severe haemophilia A: Test‐response and clinical outcomes in a single Canadian centre review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Desmopressin is an effective haemostatic agent for patients with non-severe haemophilia A; however, response may differ between patients of similar severity. Responsiveness is classified based on various cut-off values for plasma levels of FVIII post-desmopressin administration. Patients may be classified differently depending on the values chosen. AIM: To classify desmopressin response in non-severe haemophilia A patients with respect to current test-response definitions. Also, to characterize relationships between test response and clinical outcome of desmopressin use. METHODS: Current desmopressin test-response definitions were obtained from the literature. We adopted peak FVIII level (at 1 hour post-administration) ≥50 IU/dL and <20 IU/dL as complete and no response, respectively, thereby satisfying most reported definitions. Test-responses and clinical outcomes of use between 2007 and 2017 for adult mild/moderate haemophilia A patients were reviewed and correlated. RESULTS: All patients classified as complete responders (n = 31; peak FVIII ≥50 IU/dL) and the majority of partial responders (n = 11; peak FVIII ≥20 to <50 IU/dL) had good clinical outcomes after desmopressin use for a variety of bleeding episodes and procedures. Two non-responders (peak FVIII <20 IU/dL) given desmopressin for minor bleeding/procedures also had good clinical outcomes. One patient with a partial test-response (peak FVIII 23 IU/dL) required additional factor concentrate to achieve haemostasis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our review, we suggest that the determination of desmopressin responsiveness should consider both the change in plasma FVIII levels as well as clinical outcomes associated with prior therapeutic use.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".