MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hemolytic Reaction Following Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIg) for Platelet Alloimmunization During Pregnancy

2010· article· en· W2556460980 on OpenAlexaff
Setareh Samimi, Michéle David

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyRegimenHemolysisPlateletGastroenterologyGestationCreatinineFetal hemoglobinInternal medicineSurgeryObstetricsFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 4409 IVIg has become standard therapy for the prevention of severe neonatal thrombocytopenia in women with platelet alloimmunization (Bussel et al. Blood Reviews 2008). A regimen of IVIg 1g/kg twice weekly is increasingly being given for this indication. Although the benefits of this regimen outweigh its risks, clinically significant hemolysis can occur. We report here the case of a 36 year old woman who experienced hemolysis requiring red blood cell transfusions after administration of high dose IVIg for platelet alloimmunization during her second pregnancy. Her first pregnancy was terminated at 24 weeks gestation for a progressive asymmetrical ventriculomegaly first identified at 17 weeks and attributed to in utero intracerebral hemorrhage. The fetal platelet count was 5 ×109/L. Platelet antibody testing in the patient demonstrated the presence of anti-HPA-1a antibodies. The patient's genotype was HPA-1b1b and her partner's, HPA-1a1b. During the subsequent pregnancy, IVIg (Gammagard Liquid®) was started at 9 weeks gestation at a dose of 1g/kg twice weekly. Fetal genotyping was done at 15 weeks and found to be HPA-1a1b. The patient's blood group was AB+. Blood tests prior to each infusion included hemoglobin level, reticulocyte count, bilirubin, LDH, creatinine, urea, glucose and IgG as per our institutional protocol. IVIg was initially well tolerated. Between the fourth and fifth treatments, the patient complained of headache and fatigue. Her physical exam was normal. The laboratory investigation demonstrated hemolytic anemia with a hemoglobin of 74 g/L (Table). Anti-A et anti-B were present in her serum. In retrospect, her reticulocyte count and LDH had started to increase before the previous IVIg infusion (Table). She received 2 packed red cell transfusions as well as prednisone 1mg/kg/d for one week, followed by 0.5 mg/kg/d as planned in the context of her platelet alloimmunization. She improved and her hemoglobin stabilized. Therapy was resumed with a different preparation of IVIg (Gammagard S/D®) 1g/kg twice weekly for the remainder of pregnancy, without untoward effects. Acute hemolysis has been reported with IVIg. Hemolysis in these cases is generally due to passive sensitization with antibodies to the patient's red blood cells found in commercial IVIg. Risk factors are non O blood type, female sex and high dose IVIg (Daw Z et al. Transfusion 2008). Our patient had all three risk factors. Although anti-A and anti-B antibodies are found in all commercial preparations of IVIg, no recurrence was noted in our patient. In patients with alloimmune thrombocytopenia and hemolysis secondary to IVIg, treatment options include changing the commercial preparation of IVIg and giving a lower dose of IVIg with or without prednisone. In conclusion, this case demonstrates an infrequent reaction due to IVIg administration, to which clinicians and patients need to be aware. We now routinely monitor hemoglobin level, reticulocyte count, bilirubin and LDH prior to each IVIg infusion in all patients receiving high dose therapy and if signs of hemolysis appear consider treatment adjustments. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207