MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096469569 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136133

Risk of Hypertension in Hemophilia Patients with a History of Inhibitors

2020· article· en· W3096469569 sur OpenAlexaff
Anna Ter‐Zakarian, R. F. W. Barnes, Rebecca Kruse‐Jarres, Doris Quon, Shannon Jackson, Linda Sun, Annette von Drygalski

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineClotting factorPopulationPediatricsRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineFamily historyCohortHaemophiliaHepatitis C

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Hemophilia is an X-linked bleeding disorder characterized by deficiencies of Factor VIII or IX. Hypertension in persons with hemophilia (PWH) appears to be more prevalent compared to the general population. A major complication of hemophilia remains the development of neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) against infused clotting factor. It tends to occur within the first 50 exposure days and therefore mostly in children with severe hemophilia. Since inhibitor development is associated with high mortality and morbidity, their eradication with high dose clotting factor concentrates is critical and successful in the majority of patients. Recently a cohort study showed a positive association between presence of inhibitors in elderly patients and cardiovascular disease, although a small number of patients with inhibitors were included in that study (Sood SL, Blood Advances 2018). To date, the link between a history of inhibitors and hypertension has not been established. The primary purpose of our study was to evaluate the relationship between hypertension in PWH and a history of inhibitors, with the additional goals of investigating the association between hypertension and hemophilia type and viral status. In a retrospective review, clinical records were extracted for PWH aged 18 to 79 between 2003 and 2014 from four Hemophilia Treatment Centers in North America: Los Angeles Orthopaedic Hospital, University of California San Diego, Tulane University and University of British Columbia. We extracted demographic information on age and ethnicity, weight, height, hemophilia type and severity, inhibitor history, Hepatitis C (HCV; by serology) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) status or reported history thereof and medication history. Primary outcomes were prevalence of hypertension stratified by inhibitor status, hemophilia type, and presence of viral coinfection. Blood pressure measurements were taken for the three clinic visits closest to the evaluation date. We fitted generalized additive models with a non-parametric spline function for age. The outcomes were hypertension (with a binary logit), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). The models were adjusted for logBMI, type of hemophilia, severity, race/ethnicity, HCV and HIV. We plotted standardized curves generated by the models to compare trends in each outcome. A total of 691 PWH were included. Forty-four (6%) had a history of inhibitors, 533 had hemophilia type A (77%) and 157 had hemophilia type B (23%). HCV was positive in 419 patients (61%) and HIV in 128 patients (19%). There was no difference in the risk of hypertension between patients with or without a history of inhibitors. SBPs and DBSs were only analyzed for patients not on anti-hypertensives, and were not associated with a history of inhibitors (Fig. 1A). However, risk of hypertension was considerably higher among patients with Hemophilia B compared to patients with Hemophilia A (Fig. 1B). Hemophilia B patients were more likely to be categorized as hypertensive because both SBPs and DBPs were higher, especially in patients between 40 and 60 years of age. Finally, risk of hypertension was higher among those coinfected with both HCV and HIV (Fig. 1C). This large-scale study found no evidence that inhibitor history influenced the risk for hypertension or elevated BPs in PWH. Interestingly, Hemophilia B was associated with a higher risk of hypertension and higher BPs, similar to prior studies showing Hemophilia B had 1.87-fold higher odds of hypertension compared to Hemophilia A (von Drygalski A, Hypertension, 2013). Inhibitor development in Hemophilia B is very rare, which provides additional support that factors other than inhibitors play a role. Finally, our study showed coinfection with HIV and HCV was associated with higher hypertension risk, adding clarity to inconsistent findings on the association between hypertension and blood transmitted viral diseases in PWH. While there was no evidence that patients with a history of inhibitors have a higher risk of hypertension, our observations add to the continued efforts to elucidate the etiology of the hypertension in hemophilia and confirm that patients with Hemophilia B and/or viral infections may be at higher risk. These findings continue to inform medical care and also pave the way for additional studies to address physiological factors inherent to hemostasis and vascular pathology. Disclosures Kruse-Jarres: NovoNordisk: Other; CSLBehring and Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Biomarin, Chugai, CSLBehring, and Genentech/Roche: Consultancy. Quon:Orthopaedic Institute for Children: Current Employment; Bayer: Honoraria; Shire/Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bioverativ/Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Biomarin: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Jackson:Octapharma, Takeda, Bayer, Roche and Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. von Drygalski:Hematherix Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Cofounder; superFVa; Joint Activity and Damage Examination (JADE) Ultrasound measurement tool: Patents & Royalties; Biomarin, Bioverativ/Sanofi-Genzyme, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Uniqure, Takeda: Consultancy.

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)0,000
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
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 savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,222
Écart entre enseignants0,199 · 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

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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