MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400015098 · doi:10.1111/hae.15069

Emicizumab plasma levels after accelerated saturation in acquired haemophilia A

2024· letter· en· W4400015098 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tristan Kloeter, Maren Keller, Michael Metze, Sirak Petros, Christian Pfrepper

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeCSL BehringSwedish Orphan BiovitrumNovo NordiskChugai PharmaceuticalPfizer
KeywordsMedicineHaemophiliaHaemophilia ASaturation (graph theory)Pediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acquired haemophilia A (AHA) is a severe bleeding disorder caused by autoantibodies against coagulation factor VIII (FVIII).Treatment of AHA has traditionally consisted of control of acute bleeding episodes with bypassing agents such as recombinant porcine FVIII, activated prothrombin complex concentrates (APCC) and recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa).In addition, immunosuppressive therapy with agents such as prednisolone, cyclophosphamide, rituximab or mycophenolate mofetil is recommended for the eradication of the inhibitor.1 Inhibitor eradication can take several weeks 2,3 and an effective bleeding prophylaxis is warranted until remission is achieved.Approved treatment options like APCC result in high rates of breakthrough bleeding.4 Emicizumab is a bispecific antibody approved for bleeding prophylaxis in severe congenital haemophilia A (HA) with and without inhibitors as well as in moderate HA with severe bleeding phenotype.The use of emicizumab in AHA has been reported in several case reports and case series showing that various dosing regimens are efficacious in the prevention of bleeding.5 Recently, a prospective study from Japan (AGEHA, n = 12) 6 and the prospective GTH-AHA-EMI trial (n = 47) 7 reported favourable bleeding outcomes with emicizumab prophylaxis.As a result of these studies, consensus recommendations on the use of emicizumab in AHA were published by the GTH-AHA-study group, 8 and emicizumab has been approved for the treatment of AHA in some countries such as Japan and Canada.The AGEHA and the GTH-AHA-EMI-study included some patients who were actively bleeding at the time when emicizumab was initiated.Therefore, both studies proposed a therapeutic effect of emicizumab in contrast to congenital HA in which bleeding prophylaxis is the main treatment goal.To rapidly achieve effective and in that concept, therapeutic emicizumab plasma concentrations above 30 µg/mL, the AGEHA-and the GTH-AHA-EMI-trial used an accelerated emicizumab loading regimen consisting of 6 mg/kg on day 1 and 3 mg/kg on day 2 based on pharmacologic modelling.6 In the AGEHA study, emicizumab plasma levels were measured at day 1, day 2, day 4, and day 7. Emicizumab plasma levels showed a linear increase during saturation reaching a mean steady state concentration of 37.4 µg/mL (SD 14.3) on day 7.However, no individual data or the number of patients with available data is given in the manuscript.In the GTH-AHA-EMI study, emicizumab concentrations were only measured on day 7. Steady state concentrations were also reached after 7 days,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207