Real-World Analysis of Dispensed International Units of Coagulation Factor VIII and Resultant Expenditures for Hemophilia A Patients: A Comparison Between Standard Half-Life and Extended Half-Life Products.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify international units (IUs) dispensed and consequent expenditures for standard half-life (SHL) versus extended half-life (EHL) recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) replacement products in hemophilia A patients in a real-world setting. DESIGN: Two U.S. claims databases were analyzed. METHODOLOGY: Number of IUs dispensed and quarterly expenditures for rFVIII products were collected from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart and Truven Health MarketScan Databases. Truven claims were also analyzed for factor IUs dispensed and expenditures for patients with data for ≥3 months before and after switching to an EHL product. RESULTS: The Optum and Truven databases, respectively, included 276 (SHL, n=243; EHL, n=33) and 500 (SHL, n=409; EHL, n=91) hemophilia A patients. Median quarterly factor IUs dispensed in Optum were 10% higher with EHL versus SHL products over nine quarters, and 45% higher with EHL versus SHL products in Truven over 10 quarters. Median quarterly expenditures in the EHL cohort were 51% (individual quarterly medians range, 1%-101%) higher than in the SHL cohort in Optum and 122% higher (individual quarterly medians range, 1%-189%) in Truven. Twenty-nine Truven patients switched to an EHL product; median factor IUs dispensed varied quarterly. The lowest SHL and highest EHL values occurred in the quarter immediately before switching and the first quarter post-switch, respectively. Overall median quarterly expenditures were higher post-switch; this was consistent over seven quarters. CONCLUSION: We found higher expenditures over two years for hemophilia A patients using EHL versus SHL products. Switching to an EHL rFVIII product was associated with variable factor IUs dispensed and consistently higher expenditures.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".