Recombinant Factor VIIa concentrate versus plasma derived concentrates for the treatment of acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In people with haemophilia, therapeutic clotting agents might be recognised as a foreign protein and induce anti-FVIII antibodies, known as 'inhibitors'. Drugs insensitive to such antibodies, either recombinant or plasma-derived, are called factor VIII "by-passing" agents and used for treatment of bleeding in people with inhibitors. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness of recombinant FVIIa concentrate in comparison to plasma-derived concentrates for the treatment of acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Coagulopathies Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 07 July 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing recombinant FVIIa concentrate (rFVIIa) to human plasma-derived concentrates (high-dose human or recombinant FVIII or FIX concentrate; prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs); activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC)) in persons with haemophilia. Comparisons with animal derived products were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials (eligibility and risk of bias) and extracted data. No meta-analysis was performed due to unavailability of outcomes and comparisons common to the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: A total of ten trials were identified, two of which (total of 69 participants) were eligible for analysis. Both trials showed methodological flaws and did not show superiority of one treatment over the other. Both the treatments showed that (rFVIIa and aPCC appeared to have a similar haemostatic effect in both studies, without increasing thromboembolic risk. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the main conclusion should be the need for further randomised controlled trials, we conclude that both rFVIIa and aPCC can be used to treat bleeding in haemophiliacs with inhibitors.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".