Key questions in the new hemophilia era: update on concomitant use of FVIII and emicizumab in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the primary therapeutic strategy and only proven method to eradicate inhibitors to coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) in hemophilia A. Emicizumab, a humanized bispecific monoclonal antibody that mimics the function of activated FVIII, has expanded options to treat hemophilia A. The availability of emicizumab necessitates a revisit of recommendations for managing patients with inhibitors.Areas covered: Current evidence is reviewed about the concomitant use of emicizumab and FVIII concentrates during and after ITI. Areas where data are lacking are highlighted and ongoing studies designed to address these issues are described.Expert opinion: Inhibitor eradication remains a desirable goal. All patients with inhibitors should be offered at least one attempt at ITI. Emicizumab monotherapy is an option for inhibitor patients who are not candidates for ITI. Evidence is emerging about the use of emicizumab during ITI to prevent bleeds. Studies are currently addressing the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of concomitant emicizumab and FVIII in ITI. As evidence regarding the risk of inhibitor recurrence and need for continued FVIII to maintain immune tolerance post-ITI is limited, the role of emicizumab alone or in combination with FVIII after ITI is the subject of an upcoming study.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it