ReviewResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Activated prothrombin complex concentrate in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis: from evidence to clinical practice.
Review in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized Treatment of Hemophilia: Matching Therapies to Patient Needs in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.Drugs · 2026Review
- Non-Factor Therapies in Haemophilia: The Era of Factor VIII Mimetics and Targeted Rebalancing Agents.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2026Review
- A miniaturized chemiluminescent thrombin generation assay to assess the effect of APCC in persons with hemophilia A with inhibitors: an observational study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Observational
- Cautious use of activated prothrombin complex concentrate in patients receiving emicizumab: new evidence and clinical considerations.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nonfactor therapies (NFTs) such as emicizumab are increasingly becoming established for bleed prophylaxis in people with hemophilia A. Both classes of bypassing agents (BPAs; activated prothrombin complex concentrate [aPCC] and recombinant activated factor [F]VII [rFVIIa]) are required for effective bleed management in people with inhibitors receiving NFT prophylaxis, owing to the variable hemostatic responses to aPCC and rFVIIa seen in different patients. Early reports of rare thrombotic events in clinical trials of emicizumab led to the development of guidelines preferring the use of rFVIIa over aPCC for the management of breakthrough bleeding and major surgery in patients receiving emicizumab. Since these guidelines were issued, data from clinical and real-world studies have emerged that support the efficacy and safety of aPCC in this setting. In this narrative review, we aimed to evaluate the evidence on bleed management with aPCC in people with hemophilia A with inhibitors receiving emicizumab prophylaxis, as well as other NFTs. These emerging data indicate that aPCC used at doses of ≤ 100 U/kg/day in people with inhibitors receiving emicizumab is not associated with thrombotic microangiopathy or thrombotic events. As more NFTs become available for bleed prophylaxis, both classes of BPAs will be needed for bleed management in people with inhibitors. Thus, optimal use of BPAs is critical and will require an understanding of the factors that influence BPA selection, such as bleed type and location, clinical response, dosing and duration of use, accessibility and availability, and patient or caregiver preference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.