The Prevalence of Non-Neutralizing Anti-FVIII Antibodies in the Canadian Hemophilia Population.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 1291 Poster Board I-313 Introduction In approximately 25% of hemophilia A patients, inhibitory anti-FVIII antibodies develop following treatment with FVIII protein infusion therapy. This is currently the most serious treatment-related complication in this population. While the presence of these antibodies has been evaluated by a functional clotting assay for the past 30 years (the Bethesda Assay), there is a growing appreciation that the anti-FVIII immune response may also include the appearance of non-neutralizing antibodies in some patients. The prevalence, natural history and clinical relevance of these antibodies are the subject of this study. Methods Plasma samples from 602 hemophilia A patients formed the study material for this project. These samples had been stored at –80C since the conversion from plasma-derived to recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) concentrates in Canada. The results of prior Bethesda assay testing were available for 392 of these samples. The ELISA-based test for non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies utilized three different rFVIII products as antigens: two full-length rFVIII products and one B domain-deleted rFVIII. Each microtiter plate run included six negative and one positive control sample. All samples were tested in duplicate and samples with positive results (absorbance >mean + 3SD) were subjected to serial dilution testing. 93 of the samples were also tested by the same assay in a second laboratory. Results Anti-FVIII antibodies were documented using this ELISA-based assay in 11.5% of this population. 11.5% and 8.8% of the patients demonstrated non-neutralizing antibodies to the two full-length rFVIII concentrates Advate® and Kogenate®, respectively. In contrast, antibodies to the B domain-deleted concentrate, Xyntha®, were only found in 4.6% of patients. 2.8% of patients had antibodies to all three concentrates while 3.1% of patients had antibodies to only Advate (2.8%) or Kogenate (0.3%). Twenty four of the 392 patients (6.1%) tested with the Bethesda assay had inhibitory anti-FVIII antibodies (range 0.6 – 267 BUs). A third of these Bethesda +ve cases demonstrated positivity in this assay to all three rFVIII products, while another 30% had antibodies against one or two of the rFVIII concentrates. 48 of the 368 cases that tested negative in the Bethesda assay were positive for non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies (13%). To date, 20 of the samples testing positive for non-neutralizing antibodies have been studied by serial dilution analysis and 9 of these samples were only positive at the initial dilution of 1:50. Seven cases had positive dilution titers of 1:200 (3 with inhibitory antibodies ranging from 0.6 to 98 BUs) and two samples were positive at a dilution of 1:400, both of which had positive Bethesda results of 30 and 115 BUs, respectively. To assess the inter-laboratory consistency of this testing protocol, 93 selected samples were assayed with the identical methodology in a second laboratory. These studies showed positive results for the presence of antibodies to the two full-length rFVIIIs in 32-45% of cases. In contrast, the range of positive results for the two laboratories with the B domain-deleted rFVIII was between 19 and 37%. Conclusions This study of a large Canadian hemophilia A population has demonstrated the presence of non-neutralizing anti-FVIII antibodies in 11% of the population. Antibodies to the B domain-deleted rFVIII were significantly less frequent. When evaluated, inhibitory antibodies were present in 6% of this population and in the Bethesda negative cases, non-neutralizing antibodies were found in 13% of patients. Finally, many of these non-neutralizing antibodies appear to be of low titer, and their clinical significance must await further study with clotting factor recovery and half-life analysis. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».