A Practical, One-Clinic Visit Protocol for Pharmacokinetic Profile Generation with the ADVATE myPKFiT Dosing Tool in Severe Hemophilia A Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard pharmacokinetic (PK) assessments are demanding for persons with hemophilia A, requiring a 72-hour washout and 5 to 11 timed blood samples. A no-washout, single-clinic visit, sparse sampling population PK (PPK) protocol is an attractive alternative. Here, we compared PK parameters obtained with a traditional washout, 6-sampling time point PPK protocol with a no-washout, single-clinic visit, reverse 2-sampling time point PPK protocol in persons with severe hemophilia A (SHA) receiving ADVATE. A total of 39 inhibitor-negative males with SHA (factor VIII activity [FVIII:C] < 2%) were enrolled in a prospective sequential design PK study. Participants completed a washout, 6-sampling time point PPK protocol as well as a no-washout, reverse 2-sampling time point protocol, with samples taken during a single 3-hour clinic visit 24 hours post home infusion of FVIII and then 3 hours post infusion in clinic. FVIII:C levels were analyzed by one-stage and chromogenic assays; blood group and von Willebrand factor antigen (VWF:Ag) were determined; and PK parameters were analyzed using the ADVATE myPKFiT dosing tool. There was moderate to almost perfect agreement for the PK parameters obtained with the 2- and the 6- point PPK protocols using a one-stage FVIII:C assay and a substantial to almost perfect agreement using a chromogenic FVIII:C assay. Significant associations between specific PK parameters and blood group and VWF:Ag were observed. The no-washout, single-clinic visit, reverse 2-sampling time point PPK protocol can be used in the routine clinical setting since it demonstrates sufficient accuracy compared with the more demanding and less practical washout, 6-sampling time point PPK protocol in persons with SHA receiving ADVATE.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".