Peri‐operative desmopressin combined with pharmacokinetic‐guided factor VIII concentrate in non‐severe haemophilia A patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Non-severe haemophilia A patient can be treated with desmopressin or factor VIII (FVIII) concentrate. Combining both may reduce factor consumption, but its feasibility and safety has never been investigated. AIM: We assessed the feasibility and safety of combination treatment in nonsevere haemophilia A patients. METHODS: Non-severe, desmopressin responsive, haemophilia A patients were included in one of two studies investigating peri-operative combination treatment. In the single-arm DAVID study intravenous desmopressin (0.3 μg/kg) once-a-day was, after sampling, immediately followed by PK-guided FVIII concentrate, for maximally three consecutive days. The Little DAVID study was a randomized trial in patients undergoing a minor medical procedure, whom received either PK-guided combination treatment (intervention arm) or PK-guided FVIII concentrate only (standard arm) up to 2 days. Dose predictions were considered accurate if the absolute difference between predicted and measured FVIII:C was ≤0.2 IU/mL. RESULTS: In total 32 patients (33 procedures) were included. In the DAVID study (n = 21), of the FVIII:C trough levels 73.7% (14/19) were predicted accurately on day 1 (D1), 76.5% (13/17) on D2. On D0, 61.9% (13/21) of peak FVIII:C levels predictions were accurate. In the Little DAVID study (n = 12), on D0 83.3% (5/6) FVIII:C peak levels for both study arms were predicted accurately. Combination treatment reduced preoperative FVIII concentrate use by 47% versus FVIII monotherapy. Desmopressin side effects were mild and transient. Two bleeds occurred, both despite FVIII:C > 1.00 IU/mL. CONCLUSION: Peri-operative combination treatment with desmopressin and PK-guided FVIII concentrate dosing in nonsevere haemophilia A is feasible, safe and reduces FVIII consumption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".