MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2985204563 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-127946

Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of PK-Guided Switch between Standard Half-Life and Extended Half-Life Factor VIII Products

2019· article· en· W2985204563 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Eduardo Megías‐Vericat, Santiago Bonanad, María Fernanda Martínez García, Rubén Berrueco, María Eva Mingot‐Castellano, Manuel Rodríguez López, Mariana Canaro, José Mateo, Itziar Larrodé Leciñena, Saturnino Haya, Carmen Albó, Montserrat Mesegué Medea, Antonio Palomero-Massanet, N. Vilalta, José Manuel Calvo Villas, Ana Rosa Cid, Gustavo Robayo, José Luís Poveda Andrés, Guillermo Sanz, Alfonso Iorio

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangePharmacokineticsHalf-lifeHaemophiliaTrough levelInternal medicineGastroenterologyNuclear medicineSurgeryTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The high inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics (PK) of factor VIII (FVIII) justifies the use of PK-guided prophylaxis, especially in switching between different products. A proposed definition of extended half-life (EHL) FVIII requires improvements of at least 1.3 times in half-life (t1/2) and 1.25 times the area under the curve (AUC) compared to standard half-life (SHL) products (Mahlangu et al. Haemophilia. 2018;24(3):348-358). The objective of this multicenter study was to analyze the results of a PK-guided switch from SHL to EHL in patients with hemophilia A (HA). Methods Multicenter comparative, cross-sectional, prospective study in HA severe/moderate patients in prophylaxis analyzing PK differences after switch from SHL to EHL (efmoroctocog alfa [rFVIII-Fc] and rurioctocog alfa pegol [PEG-rFVIII]). WAPPS-Hemo® was used to analyze PK parameters with 2-3 samples: t1/2; AUC, peak level (PL); trough level at 24, 48 and 72 h (TL24, TL48, TL72); and time to reach FVIII levels of 1, 2, 5% (T1%, T2%, T5%). We have also compared the ratio of t1/2 and AUC, the number of weekly doses and the dose/kg/week before and after the switch. Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests (SPSS®) were used to compare the PK parameters. Results are expressed with the median and interquartile range (IQR) or range, and mean and standard deviation (SD). Results Eighty-one patients from 8 Spanish hospitals were analyzed (61 rFVIII-Fc; 20 PEG-rFVIII), 78 had severe HA and 3 moderate HA. Mean age was 30 years (range=3-64) and no differences in weight were observed between both periods [70 (range=12-116) vs 70 (13.7-116) kg; p=0,141]. Dose/kg/week and weekly infusion frequency were reduced after the switch to EHL, and significant improvements were observed in all PK parameters after the change from SHL to EHL (Table 1). These results were similar in adult and pediatric patients switching to rFVIII-Fc. The median ratios of t1/2 and AUC were 1.3 (IQR:1.2-1.6) and 1.5 (IQR:1.3-2.3) in the entire cohort. These results were reproduced in the subset of patients with ≥12 years treated with rFVIII-Fc and PEG-rFVIII (ratio t1/2: 1.4 [IQR:1.3-1.6]; ratio AUC: 1.6 [IQR:1.3-2.3]), and were slightly in the cohort of 15 patients <12 years treated with rFVIII-Fc (ratio t1/2: 1.3 [IQR:0.9-1.3]; ratio AUC: 1.3 [IQR:1.1-1.9]), the only EHL approved in Europe for children. After the switch to EHL, weekly dose frequency (median 23.3%, IQR:0-33.3%) and dose/kg/week (median 16%, IQR:5.3-30%) were reduced. In a small subset of 17 patients the dose/kg/week increased a median of 31.4%, and this subset was younger than the patients with dose/kg/week reduction or no changes (median age 18 [IQR:8-22] vs. 33 [IQR:16.5-42.5]). No differences were observed in any of the PK parameters and median ratios of t1/2 and AUC in patients aged ≥12 years treated with rFVIII-Fc vs. PEG-rFVIII (46 rFVIII-Fc; 20 PEG-rFVIII; Table 2). Conclusions EHL FVIII have shown significant PK improvements in clinical real practice, allowing to reduce weekly infusion number and dose/kg/week, especially in adult patients. Outside the clinical trial setting, we have observed an increase in t1/2 and AUC ratios accordingly to EHL definition. Comparisons regarding clinical outcomes (bleeding rate after switch) will be performed after a follow-up of 1 year with EHL for the full cohort. WAPPS-Hemo PK-guided switch easily facilitates individualization of prophylaxis with a potential reduction in the cost of treatment and patient perceived outcomes. Disclosures Megias: Baxalta US INC.: Research Funding; Grifols: Research Funding. Bonanad Boix:Baxalta US INC.: Research Funding. Berrueco:NovoNordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SOBI: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL-Bering: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mingot-Castellano:Sobi: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Novonordisk: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy. Cid:Shire, a Takeda company: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria. Sanz:AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Helsinn Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen - Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onconova: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman - La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→