A post hoc analysis of previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A who developed inhibitors in the PUPs A-LONG trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Inhibitor development is a major therapeutic complication for people with hemophilia. The phase 3 PUPs A-LONG study evaluated the safety and efficacy of efmoroctocog alfa (a recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein, herein referred to as rFVIIIFc) in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A. Male PUPs <6 years old were enrolled and received rFVIIIFc; inhibitor development was the primary end point. Post hoc analyses, including patient treatment regimen patterns and timing of inhibitor development, descriptive and Kaplan-Meier analyses of time to first inhibitor-positive test by treatment regimen and by titer, and consumption, were performed to describe patients who developed inhibitors during PUPs A-LONG. We investigated patient characteristics (eg, demographics and genotype) and nongenetic risk factors (eg, intense factor exposure and central venous access device [CVAD] placement) that may predict inhibitor development and characteristics of inhibitor development (low-titer vs high-titer inhibitor). Baseline characteristics were similarly distributed for age, race, and ethnicity across both patients who were inhibitor-positive and those who were inhibitor-negative (all P > .05). High-risk F8 variants were associated with development of high-titer inhibitors (P = .028). High-titer inhibitor development was often preceded by the presence of a low-titer inhibitor. Patients whose low-titer inhibitor progressed to a high-titer inhibitor received a higher mean dose per infusion (98.4 IU/kg, n = 5) compared with those whose low-titer inhibitor resolved spontaneously (59.2 IU/kg, n = 7; P = .033) or persisted (45.0 IU/kg, n = 5; P = .047). There was no association between CVAD placement surgery and inhibitor development. Post hoc analyses suggest that F8 genotype and dose of factor are as important as inhibitor risk factors and require further investigation. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02234323.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".