Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33194165›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in hematology2020

Pharmacokinetics in routine haemophilia clinical practice: rationale and modalities-a practical review.

Cedric Hermans, Gerry Dolan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Haemophilia B: an illustrative review of current challenges and opportunities.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Global patterns of hemophilia drug trials, hemophilia care, and health care measures.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison Pharmacokinetic Dosing Tools in Hemophilia A Children.Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Area under the curve: Comparing the value of factor VIII replacement therapies in haemophilia A.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. First experience of a hemophilia monitoring platform: florio HAEMO.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. How do we optimally utilize factor concentrates in persons with hemophilia?Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2021
    Review
  20. Pharmacokinetic Variability in Anti-TFPI Therapies: Why Absolute Metrics Matter for Plasma Monitoring.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cedric HermansHaemostasis and Thrombosis Unit, Division of Adult Haematology, St-Luc University Hospital, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10, Brussels, 1200, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5429-8437
Gerry DolanHaemophilia and Thrombosis Centre, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3270-6932
St Thomas' Hospital · GBUCLouvain · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prophylactic therapy with exogenous clotting factor concentrates in haemophilia A and B aims to achieve levels of circulating FVIII or FIX that are adequate for the prevention or reduction of spontaneous joint bleeding. Historically, a minimum trough level of at least 1% of the normal levels of circulating clotting factor has been targeted using standardised protocols. However, clearance of clotting factor varies between products and patients, and other pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters such as the frequency and magnitude of peaks may be important for ensuring optimal coverage. Thus, it is increasingly recognised that an individualised, PK-based approach to prophylaxis is necessary to achieve optimal protection. This review focuses on the clinical implications of using PK-guided, individualised prophylaxis in haemophilia to improve patient outcomes and considers practical methods of establishing patients' PK parameters. The most useful PK parameters will depend on the aim of the specific treatment (e.g. preventing activity-related and traumatic bleeds or addressing subclinical bleeding). In clinical practice, lengthy and frequent post-infusion sampling for PK analysis is costly and a significant burden for patients. However, a Bayesian analysis allows for the estimation of different PK parameters (e.g. half-life, factor concentrations over time, etc.) with only a minimum number of samples (e.g. 4, 24 and 48 h for haemophilia A), by using the patient's data to adjust a relevant population PK value towards the actual value. Numerous tools are available to aid in the practical use of Bayesian PK-guided dosing in the clinic, including the Web-based Application for the Population Pharmacokinetic Service hosted by McMaster University, Canada. The PK data can be used to determine the appropriate prophylaxis regimen for the individual patient, which can be monitored by assessment of the trough level at each clinic visit. Collection of PK data and subsequent PK-guided dosing should become standard practice when determining treatment strategies for people with haemophilia.

Indexed as

extravascular FIXhaemophiliaindividualisedpharmacokineticsprophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID33194165
PMCPMC7594230
OpenAlexW3094556560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.