High adherence to prophylaxis regimens in haemophilia B patients receiving rIX‐FP: Evidence from clinical trials and real‐world practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adherence to prophylaxis regimens is essential for bleed prevention in haemophilia but remains a challenge due to the need for frequent infusions. AIM: ) in clinical studies and real-world practice. METHODS: In two phase 3 clinical studies, patients with haemophilia B (FIX ≤2%) recorded their dose, dosing frequency and rIX-FP consumption in an e-diary. Adherence to prescribed prophylaxis regimens was assessed in all patients and to prescribed dose in patients ≥12 years only. Additionally, adherence to rIX-FP prophylaxis regimens in real-world practice was captured. RESULTS: In clinical studies, 94.9% (n = 56/59) of patients ≥12 years and 100% (n = 27) of paediatric patients received ≥80% of the expected number of infusions for their assigned prophylaxis schedule. Overall, mean adherence rate was 95.5% across all prophylaxis regimens in patients ≥12 years and 97.9% with a 7-day regimen in paediatric patients. In patients ≥12 years, 85.7% (n = 54/63) were dose adherent, defined as receiving within 10% of their prescribed dose ≥80% of the time. In real-world practice, adherence was observed in 100% (n = 14 and n = 15, respectively) of patients in two haemophilia treatment centres and 57.1% (n = 4/7) of patients in a third centre; non-adherence (n = 3/7) was linked to insurance-related and parental issues. CONCLUSION: In clinical studies, patients with haemophilia B had high adherence rates to rIX-FP prophylaxis regimens with a variety of dosing intervals, enabling them to achieve very low bleeding rates. High adherence may also be achievable in real-world practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".