Comparative safety of drug therapies used in hemophilia A and B in Canada: a multi-center, retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Comparative safety data on hemophilia therapies are scarce. Objectives: To compare the risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with extended-half-life (EHL) and standard-half-life (SHL) clotting factor therapies, bypassing agents, and emicizumab. Methods and Analysis: We analyzed Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry data from 2018 to 2022. ADRs were defined as adverse events (AEs) if definitely, possibly, or probably treatment-related. We compared incidence rates of ADRs between therapies to estimate incidence rate ratios and 95% CIs. Results: We found a total of 183 AEs and 67 ADRs. Reported AEs varied from 6.1 to 14.8 events per 1000 patients per year. Allergic reactions were the most prevalent ADRs. A higher incidence of allergic reactions was associated with emicizumab compared with EHL (IRR 3.59; 95% CI, 1.43-9.00) and SHL (IRR 11.86; 95% CI, 4.73-29.72) clotting factor concentrates. Events reflecting inadequate hemostatic control and other unintended events occurred more often with emicizumab compared with SHL (IRR 6.39, 95% CI, 1.29-31.63) and EHL concentrates (IRR 2.77, 95% CI, 0.56-13.72). No inhibitor development was reported with emicizumab or bypassing agents. Cases of neurological events and thrombosis were reported when emicizumab was used in combination with other hemostatic therapies. Conclusion: This study highlights the relative safety of therapies approved for the management of hemophilia A and B. While more ADRs were reported with emicizumab, no inhibitor development was observed. However, novelty bias cannot be ruled out. Our estimates are limited by the use of routinely collected data with no adjustment for confounding due to low event rates and missing data.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".