Clinical studies of extended-half-life recombinant FVIII products for prophylaxis in adults and children: A critical review from the physician's perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review compares the methodology of published clinical studies investigating the extended-half-life (EHL) factor VIII (FVIII) products, rFVIIIFc (efmoroctocog alfa, Elocta®/Eloctate®), BAY 94-9027 (damoctocog alfa pegol, Jivi®), BAX 855 (rurioctocog alfa pegol, Adynovate®) and N8-GP (turoctocog alfa pegol, Esperoct®) including the phase 2/3 studies, A-LONG (NCT01181128), PROTECT VIII (NCT01580293), PROLONG-ATE (NCT01736475) and pathfinder2 (NCT01480180), respectively, and their corresponding pediatric studies and extensions. Study results are interpreted from a treating physician's perspective, translating into evidence-based, real-life use of the different EHL recombinant FVIII products for personalized prophylaxis. The similarities between the studies include methodology, objectives, study design and cohort size. The differences include duration, prophylactic dosing intervals, number of patient arms, use of control group and randomization, and treatment allocation. Comparing these studies broadens physicians' understanding of each treatment's applicability. Further evaluation of study data and future real-world studies should help physicians to confidently individualize and select treatment for each patient.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".