MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979527793 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.689.689

Modeling Minimally-Effective FVIII Trough Levels in Hemophilia a Patients on PK-Guided Prophylaxis

2014· article· en· W2979527793 on OpenAlexaff
Gerald Spotts, Steven W. Pipe, Erik Berntorp, Peter W. Collins, Victor S. Blanchette, Kathelijn Fischer, Myungshin Oh, Leonard A. Valentino

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingTrough levelBleedRegimenInternal medicineSurgeryTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The aim of FVIII prophylaxis in Hemophilia A management is the reduction of risk for any bleed events (BE) in order to preserve long-term joint health and QOL. One proposed measure of the ideal prophylactic outcome is the virtual elimination of all BE not associated with trauma and/or of spontaneous etiology. Given the wide inter-patient variance in PK parameters, long-term prophylaxis outcomes and costs of therapy, PK-guided dosing has become an attractive approach to add more precision to dosing decisions and improve outcomes. Knowledge of the appropriate FVIII trough target for each individual patient to achieve a bleed-free outcome is needed however to design the ideal personalized PK-guided regimen. Objective: Model individual FVIII trough targets for achieving ideal outcomes in hemophilia A patients prescribed PK-guided prophylaxis every third day. Methods: FVIII infusion and BE records, and PK parameters from each subject participating in the 12-month PK-guided dosing arm of the randomized rAHF-PFM prophylaxis study (Valentino et al, 2012) were used to determine the predicted FVIII level at time of each BE. Median and maximum predicted FVIII values at time of spontaneous/non-trauma BE for all sites, and for joint and non-joint sites were estimated per subject. Number (%) of subjects with any spontaneous/non-trauma BE that occurred at predicted FVIII levels (maximum value and/or median value for those with more than one bleed) above and below specific theoretical FVIII trough values was modeled. Results: Of 34 subjects on PK-guided prophylaxis with rAHF-PFM targeting 1% trough every third day, 19 (56%) had no spontaneous BE during one year observation at FVIII levels (median) above the theoretical trough value of 1%. The number (%) of subjects with no spontaneous/non-trauma BE at FVIII levels (median) above the theoretical trough value of 3%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% levels increased to 71%, 79%, 31 91%, 97%, and 100%, respectively (Figure 1). All 57 spontaneous/non-trauma BE occurred at predicted FVIII levels ≤30%. Figure 1 Figure 1. Conclusions: Evaluation of individual bleeding events and treatment records for this prophylaxis study population, most of which had pre-established hemophilic arthropathy, suggests that some patients may require higher trough targets to achieve an ideal outcome. Targeting a 1% trough FVIII level every 72 hrs was effective with 56% of subjects achieving a full year with no spontaneous BE. Modeling showed that targeting a 3 - 5% FVIII trough level would have led to more than 75% overall achieving zero spontaneous annual bleed rate (ABR), and that others may have benefitted from trough targets even as high as ≥15%. While this study could not necessarily account for or examine the role of differing levels of physical activity and/or arthropathy on levels of bleeding risk, modeling of FVIII levels post-infusion using individual PK parameters and infusion records along with the contemporaneous overlay of BE should provide valuable insight when designing the optimal, personalized prophylaxis regimen for patients. Valentino LA, Mamonov V, Hellmann A, et al. J Thromb Haemost 2012 Mar; 10(3): 359-67. Disclosures Spotts: Baxter Healthcare Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pipe:Baxter: Consultancy, Honoraria. Berntorp:Baxter: Honoraria. Collins:Baxter: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oh:Baxter: Employment. Valentino:Baxter: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Biogen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GTC Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; rEVO Biologics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Inspiration Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207