Terminal half‐life of FVIII and FIX according to age, blood group and concentrate type: Data from the WAPPS database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Real-life data on pharmacokinetics of factor (F) VIII/IX concentrates, especially extended half-life (EHL), concentrates in large cohorts of persons with hemophilia are currently lacking. OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study aimed to establish reference values for terminal half-life (THL) for FVIII/IX concentrates according to concentrate type, age, blood group and inhibitor history. PATIENTS/METHODS: Data were extracted from the Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetics Service database. Groups were compared by nonparametric tests. THL was modelled according to patient characteristics and concentrate type. RESULTS: Infusion data (n = 8022) were collected from 4832 subjects (including 2222 children) with severe hemophilia (age: 1 month-85 years; 89% hemophilia A; 34% using EHL concentrates, 9.8% with history of inhibitors). THL of FVIII-EHL was longer than of FVIII standard half-life (SHL; median 15.1 vs. 11.1 h). FVIII-THL was dependent on age, concentrate type, blood group, and inhibitor history. THL of FIX-EHL was longer than of FIX-SHL (median 106.9 vs. 36.5 h). FIX-THL increased with age until 30 years and remained stable thereafter. FVIII-THL was shorter in subjects with blood group O. THL was decreased by 1.3 h for FVIII and 22 h for FIX in subjects with a positive inhibitor history. CONCLUSIONS: We established reference values for FVIII/IX concentrates according to patient characteristics and concentrate type in a large database of hemophilia patients. These reference values may inform clinical practice (e.g., assessment of immune tolerance success), economic implications of procurement processes and value attribution of novel treatments (e.g., mimetics, gene therapy).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".