MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2589100168 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.3154.3154

Rate of Inhibitor Development in Hemophilia A Patients Treated with Plasma Derived or Recombinant Factor VIII Concentrates. A Systematic Review of the Literature.

2009· review· en· W2589100168 sur OpenAlexaff
Alfonso Iorio, Susan Halimeh, Christoph Bidlingmaier, Leonardo R. Brandão, C. Escuriola‐Ettingshausen, Neil A. Goldenberg, A. Gringeri, Susanne Holzhauer, Gili Kenet, Ralf Knoefler, W. Kreuz, Karin Kurnik, Daniela Manner, Emanuela Marchesini, Maura Marcucci, Elena Santagostino, Guy Young, Pier Mannuccio Mannucci, Ulrike Nowak‐Göttl

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2009
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRegimenCochrane LibraryInternal medicineMeta-analysisMEDLINEPediatrics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3154 Poster Board III-91 Background. The development of alloantibodies that inhibit the coagulant activity of factor VIII (FVIII) is currently the most challenging complication of treatment in persons with hemophilia. Among other factors known to influence inhibitor development, several reports in the literature claimed for a different rate of inhibitor development in hemophilia A (HA) patients after plasma derived (pd-) or recombinant (r-) FVIII administration. Aim of this study was to compare the incident rate of inhibitors in HA patients treated with pd- or r-FVIII through systematic appraisal of the literature. Methods Studies reporting data about inhibitor rate in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe (< 0.01 UI/mL) or severe-moderate HA were searched in the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library. Details about study and patient characteristics were abstracted. To avoid double counting of patients included in more than one report of the same authors/working groups, patient recruitment periods and catchment areas were evaluated and authors were contacted for clarification if needed. If any of the required data could not be found in the published report, the corresponding author was contacted to provide the missing data of interest. High responder (HR) inhibitors were defined as >=5 BU/mL. Inhibitors were defined as transient when spontaneously disappearing within 6 months without the need to change treatment regimen. Firstly, the incident rate of inhibitor was recalculated for each study as the number of new inhibitor cases during the observation period divided by the number of HA patients initially inhibitor-free. Secondly, the recalculated rates were pooled for pd- and r- treated cohorts with the random effect model of Laird and Mosteller for single-cohort studies. Thirdly, a summary rate ratio (RR) was calculated for the subset of studies reporting parallel cohorts of patients treated with pd- or r-FVIII concentrates using fixed-effects and random-effects models. Sensitivity analysis, meta-regression and multivariate ANOVA were used to investigate the effect of covariates. Heterogeneity across studies and publication bias were evaluated. Results Twenty-four trials were included (19 prospective), 21 of which reporting details on HR inhibitors for a total of 2113 patients (1170 treated exclusively with pd-, 943 with r-FVIII; 1143 were severe), median age at enrolment was 9.6 months. The total number of inhibitors was 389 of which 135 in patients treated with pd- and 254 in patients treated with r-FVIII. HR inhibitors were 256 (103 for pd- and 153 for r-FVIII). Non-transient inhibitors were 162 (59 for pd- and 103 for r-FVIII). Inhibitor testing was from every 5 exposure days to every 2 year. Pooled incident rate (95% CI) was in all trials 14.7 (10.7 to 19.9) for pd- and 26.6 (22.6 to 31.0) for r-; for prospective trials 9.5 (5.7 to 15.3) for pd- and 22.4 (17.1 to 28.3) for r-; for HR inhibitors 8.5 (4.8 to 14.6) for pd- and 15.4 (12.2 to 19.3) for r-; for non-transient inhibitors 12.7 (7.3 to 21.1) for pd- and 18.9 (14.3 to 24.6) for r-. Six non concurrent cohort studies including 1259 HA patients met the inclusion criteria for RR calculation. Compared to pd-FVIII a statistically significant association with inhibitor development was demonstrated for r-FVIII, with summary RR ranging (95% CI) for HR inhibitors of 1.7 (C.I. 1.3 to 2.7), p< 0.001, I2 = 0%, Harbord-Egger bias indicator p=0.07, fixed effect model; for all inhibitor patients of 2.0 (1.5 to 2.6), p< 0.001, I2 = 41.6%, Harbord-Egger bias indicator p=0.06, random effect model. In the complete study set, testing frequency and study period correlated with rate of inhibitors development at meta-regression. At multivariate ANOVA testing frequency and study period were the strongest determinants of inhibitor development, and type of concentrate lost its statistical significance in the complete model. Conclusions This systematic review suggests that a lower inhibitor rate is found in patients with severe HA with the use of pd-FVIII, but also underscores the critical role of study related characteristics in the evaluation of the true effect of source of factor VIII. Future randomized and prospective follow-up studies are warranted. 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 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)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,030

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,006
Bibliométrie0,0160,015
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,294
Écart entre enseignants0,263 · 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'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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