Management strategies in persons with inherited haemophilia requiring antithrombotic therapy: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic events are increasingly reported in the aging haemophilia population. The purpose of this study was to understand current practices and identify knowledge and research gaps in the management of persons with haemophilia requiring antithrombotic therapy for cardiovascular disorders (CVD) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus for studies reporting on more than two patients with inherited haemophilia A or B, without inhibitors, requiring antithrombotic therapy for CVD or VTE. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We included 32 studies reporting on 432 persons with haemophilia. Three themes described the observed practice variation: (1) Difficulty weighing competing bleeding and thrombotic risks; (2) Tensions in providing standards of care and minimizing bleeding risk; (3) Advocacy for individualized strategies and multidisciplinary care. Different management strategies were used to treat persons with haemophilia in the setting of thromboembolic events, such as avoiding or choosing lower intensity antithrombotic therapy, or procedural alternatives to antithrombotic therapy. Initiation or alteration in haemostatic therapies along with antithrombotic therapy were common strategies and reported in 30 studies. However, data on target factor levels and bleeding and thrombotic events were largely missing. DISCUSSION: Our scoping review highlights unmet needs in the management of an aging population of persons with haemophilia with increasing prevalence of CVD and VTE. Management is inconsistent and divergent from those of non-haemophilic patients. Prospective data are needed to inform optimal and evidence-based management strategies of CVD and VTE in persons with haemophilia.
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 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".