Targeting higher factor VIII levels for prophylaxis in haemophilia A: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The standard of care in severe haemophilia A is prophylaxis, which has historically aimed for a factor VIII (FVIII) trough level of ≥1%. However, despite prophylactic treatment, people with haemophilia remain at risk of bleeds that have physical and quality of life implications, and that impact everyday life. AIM: The aim of this review was to evaluate evidence supporting the relationship between targeting higher FVIII activity levels with prophylaxis and improved outcomes in people with haemophilia A. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review that defined the unmet needs and treatment goals in people with haemophilia A, evaluated evidence to support targeting higher FVIII activity levels, and highlighted therapies that may support higher and sustained FVIII activity levels and improved outcomes for people with haemophilia A. RESULTS: Despite recent advances in treatment, unmet needs remain, and people with haemophilia continue to experience joint and functional impairment, acute and chronic pain, and poor mental health. All these negatively impact their health-related quality of life. Evidence suggests that FVIII activity levels of up to 50% may be needed to achieve a near-zero joint bleed rate. However, achieving high FVIII activity levels with current standard and extended half-life (EHL) FVIII replacement therapies is associated with a high treatment burden. Innovative treatment options may provide high sustained FVIII activity levels and improved patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that FVIII activity levels in people with haemophilia A should be sustained at higher levels to improve joint and patient outcomes and enable progression towards health equity.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".