MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2580021359 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.1123.1123

Immune Tolerance Induction (ITI) in Adults with Congenital Hemophilia: A Multicenter Experience

2012· article· en· W2580021359 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Kruse‐Jarres, Maria Elisa Mancuso, María Eva Mingot‐Castellano, Johnny Mahlangu

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePediatricsRetrospective cohort studyPopulationMulticenter studyYoung adultInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1123 Introduction Most inhibitors developing in adulthood are low titer inhibitors [Eckhardt 2012], however high titer inhibitors have been described [Kruse-Jarres 2010, Hay 2011]. The role of ITI in the management of adult inhibitors has not been established. Two large registries have suggested that age at ITI initiation could be a predictor of success. The North American ITI registry showed a trend toward a younger age in the ITI success group [DiMichele 2002], while the International ITI group showed a more definitive difference, where patients receiving ITI at age > 20 years had a 40 % success rate compared to a much higher success rate of 70 t0 78% in younger individuals [Mariani 2001]. Prospective therapy trials in an adult congenital hemophilia inhibitor population are difficult to conduct, as the number of patients is limited. The aim of the this multicenter retrospective review was to document our experience in the management of adult hemophilia inhibitor patients with ITI Methods Twelve hemophilia treatment centers which are part of the Globally Emerging Hemophilia Expert Panel (GEHEP) with centers in Canada, Europe, South Africa and the US, who collectively look after over 3000 hemophilia patients, participated in this study. Each center obtained ethics approval prior to data collection. Retrospective record review was undertaken at each center to identify congenital hemophilia patients treated with ITI as an adult (started at ≥ 17 years of age)and who completed the treatment course between 1980 and 2012. The treatment course was defined as any of the accepted ITI regimens. Treatment success was defined as inhibitor eradication or >66% factor recovery. Results Of 21 patients who received ITI as an adult, 71% had partial (<5BU and FVIII was able to be reinstated) or complete success. All patients had hemophilia A and most were severe (One patient in the ITI failure group had a level of 2% and in the success group, one had a level of 1% and on of 3%). Of the 13 patients achieving complete success, 38% relapsed (mean follow up of 9.4 years, range 3 months to 29 years). Age at start of ITI did not seem to be a predictor of success: mean age in the success group was 32.0 years (range 17 –55) and in the failure group was 33.5 years (range 22 – 57). All patients in the failure group were white, where 3 patients in the success group were non-white. The success group included one low responding inhibitor and had an overall lower peak inhibitors (mean 89.75 BU, range 3 – 270 BU) than the failure group (mean 353.8 BU, range 89–600 BU). Fifty percent of the failure patients had received a prior ITI attempt, where only 8% of the success group had. More patients in the failure group had received plasma derived factor VIII product for their ITI (83%) than in the success group (69%) but dosing was not significantly different (mean of 416 units/kg/week in failure group, 455 U/kg/week in success group). Overall, patient who failed stayed on ITI slightly longer (mean 20 months) than the patients who succeeded (mean 16 months). Conclusion In this limited series of adult inhibitor hemophilia patients treated with ITI, the success rate was high and comparable to that obtained in the pediatric population. Age at start of ITI did not seem to be a predictor of success, but prior ITI and historical peak inhibitor were negative predictors. Prospective clinical studies are required to expand on these preliminary findings. Disclosures: Kruse-Jarres: Bayer: Administrative and meeting support Other, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHemophilia Treatment and Research→Travaux en français237 207→