ReviewAmerican journal of blood research2022
Consensus recommendations on appropriate coagulation tests during emicizumab administration in Saudi Arabia.
Review in American journal of blood research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emicizumab as a Promising Form of Therapy for Type A Hemophilia - A Review of Current Knowledge from Clinical Trials.Current protein & peptide science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmicizumab is a bispecific monoclonal antibody with the ability to bridge FIXa and FX, mimic FVIII, and restore normal hemostasis in patients with hemophilia A. Moreover, substantial evidence has shown that emicizumab-treated patients do not require monitoring, except before surgery or invasive procedures. However, introducing this novel drug to the market poses some challenges to physicians and clinical laboratories due to its interaction with conventional coagulation tests.
methodsGiven the challenges and laboratory interactions posed by this novel drug, there is an unmet clinical need to develop clear recommendations for emicizumab laboratory monitoring to highlight which laboratory tests should be used, which tests should be avoided, and when these tests should be performed. These expert recommendations are essential to prevent inappropriate testing or misleading interpretations and reduce the extra costs of unnecessary monitoring.
resultsA consensus meeting was conducted in December 2019, including top experts on hemophilia from Saudi Arabia, to discuss this issue.
conclusionThe experts agreed that, aPTT (activated Partial Thromboplastin Time)-based tests are not suitable for laboratory monitoring patients treated with emicizumab. Only FVIII chromogenic assays based on bovine FIX and FX proteins can be used to measure FVIII levels. They reviewed and recommended the type and time of testing for anti-factor VIII antibodies. Drug levels should be measured using the recommended test only when the anti-drug antibody (ADA) is clinically suspected and after excluding other causes (such as patient non-compliance).
Indexed as
Identifiers
35873100PMC9301022W4288064324What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.