Rituximab for treatment of inhibitors in haemophilia A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of antibodies against infused factor VIII (FVIII) in patients with haemophilia A is a serious complication leading to poorly controlled bleeding and increased morbidity. No treatment has been proven to reduce high titre antibodies in patients who fail immune tolerance induction or are not candidates for it. The Rituximab for the Treatment of Inhibitors in Congenital Hemophilia A (RICH) study was a phase II trial to assess whether rituximab can reduce anamnestic FVIII antibody (inhibitor) titres. Male subjects with severe congenital haemophilia A and an inhibitor titre ≥5 Bethesda Units/ml (BU) following a FVIII challenge infusion received rituximab 375 mg/m² weekly for weeks 1 through 4. Post-rituximab inhibitor titres were measured monthly from week 6 through week 22 to assess treatment response. Of 16 subjects who received at least one dose of rituximab, three (18.8%) met the criteria for a major response, defined as a fall in inhibitor titre to <5 BU, persisting after FVIII re-challenge. One subject had a minor response, defined as a fall in inhibitor titre to <5 BU, increasing to 5-10 BU after FVIII re-challenge, but <50% of the original peak inhibitor titre. Rituximab is useful in lowering inhibitor levels in patients, but its effect as a solo treatment strategy is modest. Future studies are indicated to determine the role of rituximab as an adjunctive therapy in immune tolerisation strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".