Trial reportResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2026
Prospective collection of bleeding rate and factor usage in participants with hemophilia A and B in a noninvestigational product study.
Trial report in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We report efficacy and select safety outcomes of current factor prophylaxis of adults with moderately severe to severe hemophilia A (HA) or hemophilia B (HB) in a large, prospective, noninvestigational product study. Objectives: This study established prospective efficacy data on factor (F)VIII/FIX prophylaxis in the usual care setting. Methods: This prospective, open-label, noninvestigational product, multicenter study (BENEGENE-1) included HA and HB cohorts. Participants remained on their current factor replacement therapy. The primary end point was annualized bleeding rate. Secondary end points included annualized infusion rate of FVIII/FIX replacement therapy. Safety data were also collected. Results: In total, 241 individuals with HA and 333 with HB were screened, and 101 and 111, respectively, were enrolled in this study. The most common reason for screen failure was adeno-associated virus neutralizing antibody positivity, accounting for 82.1% and 92.3% of screen failures in the HA and HB cohorts, respectively. The corresponding overall mean (SD; range) follow-up duration was 310.8 (209.2; 14-948) and 498.6 (293.4; 117-1269) days. Mean (SD) total annualized bleeding rate and annualized infusion rate were 6.1 (10.6) and 127.1 (51.8) for participants with HA and 4.5 (9.4) and 62.8 (33.3) for participants with HB, respectively. No new safety concerns were identified with FVIII/FIX replacement therapy. Conclusion: This study provides a robust, prospective, informative dataset on bleeding rates in participants receiving factor replacement therapy over a mean follow-up of ∼1 year. Although FVIII/FIX prophylaxis was generally well tolerated, bleeding rate data illustrate the limitations of current standard-of-care factor prophylaxis.
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.