MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2979701566 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.3774.3774

Risk Factors for the Development of High-Titer Inhibitors in 260 Children with Severe Hemophilia a Born Between 1990 and 2009: The Remain Study

2016· article· en· W2979701566 sur OpenAlexaff
Maria Elisa Mancuso, Kathelijn Fischer, Elena Santagostino, Johannes Oldenburg, Helen Platokouki, Christoph Königs, Carmen Escuriola, Georges‐Étienne Rivard, Ana Rosa Cid, Manuel Carção, Rolf Ljung, Pia Petrini, Anne Rafowicz, Carmen Altisent, Gili Kenet, Raina Liesner, Karin Kurnik, Chris Van Geet, Teresa Álvarez-Roman, Tin Tin Yee, G. Auerswald, Rosario Pérez‐Garrido, Beatrice Nolan, Hérvè Chambost, Anne Mäkipernaa, Angelo Claudio Molinari, Angela Thomas, Elizabeth Chalmers, Mike Williams, Rainer Kobelt, Marijke van den Berg

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick ChildrenInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTiterMedicineInternal medicineUnivariate analysisImmunologyLogistic regressionConcomitantAntibodyMultivariate analysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The development of anti-FVIII antibodies (i.e., inhibitors) is the major side effect of severe hemophilia A treatment. Inhibitors mainly develop in children during the first 50 exposure days and are classified in low-and high-titer (i.e., peak titer < or > 5 UB/ml). High-titer inhibitors have the major clinical impact. At diagnosis however, the real nature of the antibody is not clear in all patients, since some low-titer inhibitors may progress to high-titer. The determinants of the evolution from low- to high-titer inhibitors are still unclear and the aim of the present study was to investigate potential risk factors associated with the progression from low- to high-titer inhibitors. This study is a follow-up study of the PedNet Registry and includes 260 children with severe hemophilia A and clinically relevant inhibitors, born between 1990 and 2009 and consecutively recruited from 31 hemophilia centers in 16 countries. Clinical and laboratory data were collected from the date of first positive inhibitor test and covered a minimum of 3-years follow-up. Factors potentially associated with progression from low- to high-titer inhibitor development were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. F8 mutation type was known in 247 patients (95%), including 202 (82%) null mutations (i.e., large deletions, nonsense mutations and inversions). Positive family history of inhibitors was present in 37 of 99 (37%) with positive family history of hemophilia. At diagnosis 49% (n=127) had low-titer inhibitors, however, upon FVIII re-exposure, 50% of low-titer inhibitors progressed to high-titer and only 25% of patients (n=69) had persistent low-titer inhibitors. Within the first 3 years of follow-up, immune tolerance induction (ITI) was equally implemented in around 80% of low-and high-titer patients but it was started later in children with high-titers (median time to ITI start 4.5 vs 0.3 months; p<0.001) in whom daily regimens and high-dose FVIII were more frequently adopted (89, 67% vs 41, 50% and 98, 74% vs 35, 43%; p=0.01 and <0.001, respectively). Overall high-titer inhibitor development was associated with null F8 mutations (OR 2.8, 95%CI 1.4-5.5) and family history of inhibitors (OR 3.9, 95%CI 1.2-12.6). The progression from low- to high-titer inhibitors during follow up, was associated with the use of high-dose ITI regimens (i.e., >100 IU/kg/day) with an OR of 3.9 (95%CI 1.5-10.0), independent from the effects of F8 mutation type (adjusted OR 3.6, 95%CI 1.4-9.8) and family history of inhibitors (adjusted OR 6.7, 95%CI 1.1-42.6). No difference was found by comparing the use of daily versus non-daily ITI. In conclusion, in a cohort of 260 children with severe hemophilia A and inhibitors, 49% presented with low-titers at diagnosis and 46% of them progressed to high-titers during follow-up. Progression to high-titer inhibitors was associated with the use of high-dose ITI. These results suggest that intensive ITI should be avoided as initial strategy in low-titer inhibitor patients. Disclosures Mancuso: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi/Biogen Idec: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kedrion: Consultancy. Fischer:Wyeth/Pfizer: Research Funding; Biogen: Consultancy; NovoNordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Biotest Octapharma: Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Freeline: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Santagostino:Octapharma: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Kedrion: Consultancy; Sobi: Consultancy; Biogen Idec: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Grifols: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Escuriola:Baxalta, now part of Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Investigator Clinical Studies, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Biotest: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Grifols: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Liesner:BPL: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cangene: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Baxalta Innovations GmbH, now a part of Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SOBI: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Grifols: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nolan:Sobi: Research Funding; Biogen: 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 enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,022

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
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · 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
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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