MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3094984391 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136767

Risk Factors for Thrombotic Events in Patients with PNH: A Nested Case-Control Study in the International PNH Registry

2020· article· en· W3094984391 sur OpenAlexaff
Britta Hoechsmann, Régis Peffault de Latour, Anita Hill, Alexander Röth, Timothy Devos, Christopher J. Patriquin, Wen‐Chien Chou, Deepak Jain, Ke Zu, Jong Wook Lee

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueComplement system in diseases
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineNested case-control studyInternal medicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalUnivariate analysisParoxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuriaCohortMultivariate analysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Although thrombotic events (TEs) are the leading cause of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH)-related mortality, the risk factors predictive of TEs are not well established. Several small or previous studies reported that the proportion of PNH cells, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), age, thrombosis at diagnosis, and treatment may impact TE risk.1-5 The International PNH Registry (NCT01374360) is an observational cohort study containing the largest database of safety, quality-of-life, and outcome data from patients with PNH. Here, we analyzed patient data from the Registry to identify risk factors for TEs. METHODS Data from Registry patients who were untreated at enrollment, had an incident TE after enrollment, non-zero follow-up time, and with documented birthdate, sex, enrollment date, treatment status, and country, were included in this analysis. The first TEs experienced by eligible patients after enrollment were identified as TE cases; the date of the index TE event was defined as the Index Date. Up to five controls were selected from the risk set for each TE case matched on age (±5 years at Index Date), gender, country, and history of bone marrow disease (BMD). Cases that could not be matched with at least one control were excluded from the study. For covariates included in the analysis, conflicting or absent values were marked as "missing." Univariate conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% Wald confidence intervals (CIs) of TE associated with candidate risk factors: glycophosphatidylinositol (GPI)-deficient granulocytes, GPI-deficient erythrocytes, LDH ratio, recent high-disease activity (HDA; defined as within six months prior to the Index Date, LDH ratio ≥1.5xULN, and hemoglobin <10 g/dL or at least one of the following symptoms: abdominal pain, dyspnea, dysphagia, fatigue, hemoglobinuria, and/or male erectile dysfunction), LDH ratio and number of HDA symptoms, history of TE, history of major adverse vascular event (MAVE), and recent prophylactic anticoagulant (PA) use. RESULTS Due to the strict eligibility criteria, 57 TE cases and 189 non-TE controls met the conditions and were matched for the case-control study. The mean age at Index Date was 46.8 years for TE cases and 47.1 years for non-TE control (Table A). Cases were more likely to have a clone size of ≥ 50% GPI-deficient granulocytes, an LDH ratio ≥ 1.5xULN, recent HDA, and a history of TE or MAVE, compared with controls. From univariate analyses, the following factors were found to be associated with statistically significantly increased risk of TE: recent HDA (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.10-6.61), LDH ≥1.5xULN and 2-3 HDA symptoms (OR, 8.61; 95% CI, 1.46-96.96), LDH ≥1.5xULN and ≥4 HDA symptoms (OR, 14.50; 95% CI, 1.70-209.25), and a history of TE (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.41-9.24) or MAVE (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 0.96-4.80), and recent PA use (OR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.57-13.13) (Figure A). The strengths of this analysis include a robust study design for evaluation of a rare outcome and multiple risk factors, increased generalizability with an international patient population, and the ability to evaluate both medical history and recent clinical characteristics relevant to PNH and TE; however, not all patients had available data for each parameter assessed and the number of TE cases identified were relatively small. Despite these limitations, factors that were statistically significantly associated with increased TE risk were identified from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS Based on this observational PNH Registry analysis, we identified several clinical features of PNH that were associated with an elevated risk of TE, including ≥50% GPI-deficient granulocyte clone size, LDH ratios ≥1.5xULN, recent HDA, LDH ≥1.5xULN plus HDA symptoms, a history of TE or MAVE, and recent PA use compared with non-TE controls; for recent PA use, these patients were most likely at increased risk of TE, which may explain why they received treatment. Our data add to the findings of previously published studies1,4 by expanding the results to a broader patient population. These results highlight the importance and urgency of identifying and monitoring risk factors for TE in patients with PNH to inform treatment decisions. Disclosures Hoechsmann: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Peffault De Latour:Apellis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hill:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Röth:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Biocryst: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Devos:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patriquin:Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apellis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jain:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zu:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Merck & Co.: Current Employment. Lee:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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 enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,342

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,230 · 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 tête enseignante, 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

Citations3
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetComplement system in diseasesTravaux en français237 207