MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310093492 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-168675

The Empower Study - Design of a Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of a Plasma-Derived Von Willebrand Factor / Factor VIII Concentrate for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding in Women with Von Willebrand Disease

2022· article· en· W4310093492 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Sholzberg, Grace H. Tang, Paula James, Filomena Meffe, Emily Rimmer, Shannon Jackson, Haowei Sun, Sue Robinson, Georgina Floros, Shamshah Aratia, Peter Jüni, Bruno R. da Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of AlbertaQueen's UniversitySt. Paul's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVon Willebrand diseaseVon Willebrand factorRandomized controlled trialPlaceboCrossover studyMenstruationClinical trialPediatricsInternal medicineObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although von Willebrand disease (VWD) is inherited by men and women equally, women are more likely to experience bleeding symptoms due to the challenges of menstruation and childbirth. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is the most common symptom observed in women and girls with VWD, and increases risk of iron deficiency anemia, blood transfusion, hospitalization and decreased health-related quality of life. While replacement therapy with von Willebrand factor (VWF) is recommended for prophylaxis in patients with VWD with severe and frequent bleeding, recommendations on its use for prophylaxis of HMB are limited due the lack of clinical trial data. Aims: The EMPOWER pilot trial will determine the feasibility of the trial design, as well as explore assay sensitivity to inform the determination of the primary outcome for the definitive randomized trial which will evaluate the effect of prophylaxis with plasma-derived VWF/FVIII (1:1; pdVWF:FVIII) concentrate compared with placebo on HMB in women with VWD. Methods: EMPOWER is a pilot, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-blind (patient and outcome assessor blinded), 2-year trial in female outpatients with VWD and HMB. We will evaluate the effect of 2-3 doses of prophylaxis with 40-60 IU VWF:RCo/kg pdVWF/FVIII concentrate when provided on the 2 heaviest days within the first 4 days of menstruation compared with placebo (normal saline). For the first treatment period, participants will be randomized to receive either pdVWF/FVIII concentrate or placebo for 4 cycles, crossing over to the comparator treatment during the second treatment period (see Figure 1). Non-pregnant female patients, ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of inherited VWD (any type) with HMB defined as a modified pictorial blood assessment chart (mPBAC) score >100, on stable treatment for HMB and iron-deficiency anemia will be eligible. Patients with diagnosis of another bleeding disorder or the presence of >2 risk factors for venous thromboembolism will be excluded. The pilot trial viability outcomes include blinding index scores and participant drop-out rates. Feasibility outcomes include data completeness and rate of enrolment. The proposed primary clinical efficacy outcome is the mPBAC score and the key secondary efficacy outcome is the need for rescue therapy (i.e. >2 days of oral tranexamic acid use, additional treatment with pdVWF:FVIII concentrate, additional hormonal therapy for HMB, urgent/emergent gynecological surgery for HMB, treatment with intravenous iron, red blood cell transfusion, or hospital admission for HMB). Other secondary outcomes include major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, red blood cell transfusion, fatigue and quality of life scores. Given the uncertainty in this area of research and the relative comparable clinical importance of proposed clinical efficacy outcomes, we will evaluate assay sensitivity to determine the outcome that has the greatest chance of detecting a difference between treatment periods. Assay sensitivity is defined as the ability of a scale to distinguish an effective from a less effective intervention or placebo. Assay sensitivity along with the proportion of missing data per clinical efficacy outcome and sample size considerations will influence the choice of primary outcome for the definitive trial. Safety will be evaluated by monitoring for hypersensitivity reactions, thromboembolic events and VWF inhibitors. The pilot trial will recruit 20 participants from Hemophilia Treatment Centres in Canada over 2 years. Results: The pilot trial is aiming to launch by the fall 2022. If the pilot trial is deemed feasible and viable, we will subsequently conduct a definitive international randomized controlled trial. Conclusion: Data from the EMPOWER trial will fill an important knowledge gap to facilitate evidence-based management of HMB in women with VWD. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207