Desmopressin for bleeding in non‐severe hemophilia A: Suboptimal use in a real‐world setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Desmopressin is an important treatment option in nonsevere hemophilia A because it has several benefits compared with factor (F) concentrates, including no inhibitor risk and much lower costs. Despite these advantages, data are limited on the real-world use of desmopressin in the treatment of bleeds. Objective: To describe the clinical use of desmopressin in relation to other therapeutic modalities in the treatment of bleeding episodes in patients with nonsevere hemophilia A. Methods: Patients with nonsevere hemophilia A aged 12-55 years were included from the DYNAMO cohort study. Data on the desmopressin test response and treated bleeding events in the period January 2009 to July 2020 were retrospectively collected from medical files. An adequate desmopressin test response was defined based on a peak FVIII level of ≥30 IU/dl. Results: A total of 248 patients with a median age of 38 years (interquartile range 25-49) were included. An adequate desmopressin test response was documented in 25% and 73% of patients with moderate and mild hemophilia, respectively. In adequate responders, 51% of bleeds were exclusively treated with FVIII concentrates, 24% exclusively with desmopressin, 21% with a combination of both and 4% with other treatments. In 54% of bleeds treated with a single dose of factor concentrates, the expected FVIII level after desmopressin exceeded the level targeted. Conclusion: Most bleeds in patients with an adequate response to desmopressin are treated with factor concentrates. These findings may indicate a suboptimal use of desmopressin and that barriers to the use of desmopressin should be explored.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".