MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2909444021 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-114518

99.3% of Inhibitors in Severe Hemophilia a Develop before Exposure Day 75. Time to Change Definition of Previously Treated Patients; Data from 1038 Patients with Severe Hemophilia a of the Pednet Registry

2018· article· en· W2909444021 sur OpenAlexaff
Marijke van den Berg, Kathelijn Fischer, Elena Santagostino, Hérvè Chambost, Karin Kurnik, Gili Kenet, Christoph Male, Anne Rafowicz, Helen Platokouki, Susanna Ranta, Chris Van Geet, Johannes Oldenburg, Ri Liesner, Segolene Claeyssens, Nadine Gretenkort-Andersson, Anne Mäkipernaa, Torben Stamm Mikkelsen, Manuel Carção, Beatrice Nolan, Liz Chalmers, Ana Rosa Cid, Teresa Álvarez-Roman, Carmen Altisent, Georges E. Rivard, Claudio Molinari, Martina Buehrlen, Rainer Kobelt, Carmen Escuriola, Manuela Carvalho, Christoph Koenigs, Mike Williams, Rolf Ljung

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineTiterIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineFactor IXAntibodyPediatricsGastroenterologyImmunology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction.In patients with hemophilia treated with factor VIII products, the development of inhibitory antibodies poses the largest safety risk. Especially during the first 50 exposure days (EDs), up to 37% of patients with severe hemophilia A have been reported to develop an inhibitor. To study neo-immunogenicity of products and new treatment strategies, patients have been distinguished into previously untreated (PUPs) and previously treated patients (PTPs); the latter defined as patients treated for more than 150 EDs. The number of 150 EDs was established in the eighties during a time when most patients received on-demand treatment and testing for inhibitors was not frequently performed. More recent studies on inhibitor incidence in PUPs with severe hemophilia A report that 50% of inhibitors develop within 14-15 EDs, however the cut-off number of EDs for a PUP to become a PTP is not well defined. The aim of this study was to define the number of EDs for PUPs to become PTPs based on long-term follow-up of patients with severe hemophilia A Methods.All patients with severe hemophilia A born after January 1, 2000, treated for at least 1 ED and followed prospectively until inhibitor development or the number of EDs at last follow-up, were included. The number of EDs at inhibitor development is the last exposure day before the first positive titer was reported. An inhibitor was defined as positive when at least two positive inhibitor titers were measured. Positivity was defined according to the cut-off level in each individual center's laboratory. Results.Of 1,038 PUPs with severe hemophilia A, 930 (89.6%) were followed until 75 EDs, 429 until 500 EDs and 212 until 1000 EDs. In total, 300 inhibitors developed, of which 298 (99.3%) within the first 75 EDs. Thereafter only two inhibitors developed, both low titer: after 249 and 264 EDs. Conclusion.Almost all inhibitors develop during the first 75 EDs. Patients with severe hemophilia A can be defined as PTP after 75 instead of 150 exposure days. A change of definition of PTP will increase the number of severe hemophilia A patients eligible for new therapies. Disclosures Santagostino: Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kedrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Grifols: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Male:SOBI: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Speakers Bureau; Biotest: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Oldenburg:Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biogen Idec: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Grifols: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biotest: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Swedish Orphan Biovitrum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Liesner:Baxalta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy, Other: Clinical study investigator for NuProtect Study (Octapharma sponsored), Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Carcao:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Grifols: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL-Behring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LFB: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioverativ/Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biotest: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nolan:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Álvarez-Roman:Shire: Consultancy; NovoNordisk: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy. Koenigs:Gilead: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Intersero: Research Funding; Bioverativ: Consultancy; Roche/Chugai: Consultancy; EU (IMI, FP7): Research Funding; Sobi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Biotest: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jansen: 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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 enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,254
Écart entre enseignants0,223 · 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
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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