Reduced doses of emicizumab achieve good efficacy: Results from a national‐wide multicentre real‐world study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reduced doses of emicizumab improve the affordability among patients in developing countries. However, the relationship between variant dose selection and efficacy in the real world of China is still unclear. AIM: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of emicizumab especially in those on reduced dose regimens in a real-world setting. METHODS: We carried out a multicentre study from 28 hospitals between June 2019 and June 2023 in China and retrospectively analysed the characteristics including demographics, diagnosis, treatment, bleeding episodes, and surgical procedures. RESULTS: In total, 127 patients with haemophilia A, including 42 with inhibitors, were followed for a median duration of 16.0 (IQR: 9.0-30.0) months. Median age at emicizumab initiation was 2.0 (IQR: 1.0-4.0) years. Median (IQR) consumption for loading and maintenance was 12.0 (8.0-12.0) and 4.2 (3.0-6.0) mg/kg/4 weeks, respectively. While on emicizumab, 67 (52.8%) patients had no bleeds, whereas 60 (47.2%) patients had any bleeds, including 26 with treated bleeds. Compared to previous treatments, patients on emicizumab had significantly decreased annualized bleeding rate, annualized joint bleeding rate, target joints and intracerebral haemorrhage. Different dosages had similar efficacy except the proportion of patients with treated spontaneous bleeds and target joints. Adverse events were reported in 12 (9.4%) patients. Postoperative excessive bleeding occurred following two of nine procedures. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study describing patients with HA receiving emicizumab prophylaxis on variant dose regimens in China. We confirmed that nonstandard dose is efficacious and can be considered where full-dose emicizumab is ill affordable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".