MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Passive Transfer of Hepatitis B Core Antibody by Intravenous Immune Globulin in Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura.

2009· article· en· W2566317865 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donald M. Arnold, Julie Carruthers, Julie Ditomasso, Thea Gagliardi, Ralph M. Meyer, Mark Crowther, John G. Kelton

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityHamilton Health SciencesHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramSt. Joseph's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRituximabThrombocytopenic purpuraRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyImmunologyHepatitis BAntibodySeroprevalenceConfidence intervalOdds ratioPlateletSerology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2418 Poster Board II-395 Background: Rituximab may reactivate remote hepatitis B infection. Thus, hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) seropositivity was an exclusion for a randomized trial of rituximab in patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) in Canada. During screening for this trial, we observed a high rate of HBcAb seropositivity at our centre. We investigated passive antibody transfer by intravenous immune globulin (IVIg) as a potential explanation. Methods: We performed a case-control study of consecutive ITP patients screened for eligibility for a randomized trial of rituximab. We compared the frequency of prior IVIg use and the IVIg product administered to patients who tested positive (n=11) and negative (n=13) for HBcAb. Total (IgG and IgM) HBcAb was tested using a microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA) that measures the rate of inhibition compared with an internal cut-off value (AxSYM®, Abbott Laboratories, IL, USA). We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for IVIg exposure. We also tested different lots of 2 IVIg products directly for HBcAb in the MEIA. Results: Of 24 consecutive patients with ITP screened, 11 (45.8%) were positive for HBcAb and thus were excluded from the randomized trial. The observed rate of HBcAb seropositivity in this cohort was 35 times higher than the expected seroprevalence in Canada of 1.3% (O'Brien Transfusion 2009). Of 11 HBcAb-positive patients, 10 (90.9%) had received prior IVIg [OR, 16 (95% CI, 1.54, 166.05)]. Of the 10 patients who received IVIg, 8 (80.0%) received Gamunex (10% human immune globulin, Talecris Biotherapeutics, Clayton, NC). HBcAb was repeated in 8 seropositive patients, of whom 4 were negative on repeat testing 7 to 104 weeks after the last dose of IVIg. Of the 13 HBcAb-negative patients, 5 (38.5%) had received prior IVIg; none were Gamunex. Seroconversion was documented in one patient serially tested after receiving Gamunex; MEIA rates decreased (became positive) rapidly, then gradually increased to normal after 7 weeks. Samples from 4 lots of Gamunex were reactive in the MEIA; whereas 3 lots of IGIVnex (Talecris Biotherapeutics) were non-reactive. Conclusions: False positive HBcAb results may occur due to the passive transfer of HBcAb from Gamunex, an IVIg product manufactured from donors who are not screened for HBcAb. HBcAb should be interpreted cautiously in any patient who received IVIg. We recommend HBcAb testing before IVIg administration so that treatments such as rituximab are not withheld unnecessarily. Disclosures: Arnold: Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Meyer:The NCIC CTG is a clinical trials cooperative group. It receives its base grant support from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute. Many of its clinical trials include research support from industry. : Research Funding.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207