Risk Factors for Thrombotic Events in Patients with PNH: A Nested Case-Control Study in the International PNH Registry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».