Algorithm for the Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Cross Reactive Immunologic Material-Negative Classic Infantile Pompe Disease: A Step towards Improving the Efficacy of ERT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) is a highly effective therapy, CRIM-negative (CN) infantile Pompe disease (IPD) patients typically mount a strong immune response which abrogates the efficacy of ERT, resulting in clinical decline and death. This study was designed to demonstrate that immune tolerance induction (ITI) prevents or diminishes the development of antibody titers, resulting in a better clinical outcome compared to CN IPD patients treated with ERT monotherapy. METHODS: We evaluated the safety, efficacy and feasibility of a clinical algorithm designed to accurately identify CN IPD patients and minimize delays between CRIM status determination and initiation of an ITI regimen (combination of rituximab, methotrexate and IVIG) concurrent with ERT. Clinical and laboratory data including measures of efficacy analysis for response to ERT were analyzed and compared to CN IPD patients treated with ERT monotherapy. RESULTS: Seven CN IPD patients were identified and started on the ITI regimen concurrent with ERT. Median time from diagnosis of CN status to commencement of ERT and ITI was 0.5 months (range: 0.1-1.6 months). At baseline, all patients had significant cardiomyopathy and all but one required respiratory support. The ITI regimen was safely tolerated in all seven cases. Four patients never seroconverted and remained antibody-free. One patient died from respiratory failure. Two patients required another course of the ITI regimen. In addition to their clinical improvement, the antibody titers observed in these patients were much lower than those seen in ERT monotherapy treated CN patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ITI regimen appears safe and efficacious and holds promise in altering the natural history of CN IPD by increasing ERT efficacy. An algorithm such as this substantiates the benefits of accelerated diagnosis and management of CN IPD patients, thus, further supporting the importance of early identification and treatment initiation with newborn screening for IPD.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".