MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Immune Tolerance Induction (ITI) in Adults with Congenital Hemophilia: A Multicenter Experience

2012· article· en· W2580021359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Kruse‐Jarres, Maria Elisa Mancuso, María Eva Mingot‐Castellano, Johnny Mahlangu

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsRetrospective cohort studyPopulationMulticenter studyYoung adultInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1123 Introduction Most inhibitors developing in adulthood are low titer inhibitors [Eckhardt 2012], however high titer inhibitors have been described [Kruse-Jarres 2010, Hay 2011]. The role of ITI in the management of adult inhibitors has not been established. Two large registries have suggested that age at ITI initiation could be a predictor of success. The North American ITI registry showed a trend toward a younger age in the ITI success group [DiMichele 2002], while the International ITI group showed a more definitive difference, where patients receiving ITI at age > 20 years had a 40 % success rate compared to a much higher success rate of 70 t0 78% in younger individuals [Mariani 2001]. Prospective therapy trials in an adult congenital hemophilia inhibitor population are difficult to conduct, as the number of patients is limited. The aim of the this multicenter retrospective review was to document our experience in the management of adult hemophilia inhibitor patients with ITI Methods Twelve hemophilia treatment centers which are part of the Globally Emerging Hemophilia Expert Panel (GEHEP) with centers in Canada, Europe, South Africa and the US, who collectively look after over 3000 hemophilia patients, participated in this study. Each center obtained ethics approval prior to data collection. Retrospective record review was undertaken at each center to identify congenital hemophilia patients treated with ITI as an adult (started at ≥ 17 years of age)and who completed the treatment course between 1980 and 2012. The treatment course was defined as any of the accepted ITI regimens. Treatment success was defined as inhibitor eradication or >66% factor recovery. Results Of 21 patients who received ITI as an adult, 71% had partial (<5BU and FVIII was able to be reinstated) or complete success. All patients had hemophilia A and most were severe (One patient in the ITI failure group had a level of 2% and in the success group, one had a level of 1% and on of 3%). Of the 13 patients achieving complete success, 38% relapsed (mean follow up of 9.4 years, range 3 months to 29 years). Age at start of ITI did not seem to be a predictor of success: mean age in the success group was 32.0 years (range 17 –55) and in the failure group was 33.5 years (range 22 – 57). All patients in the failure group were white, where 3 patients in the success group were non-white. The success group included one low responding inhibitor and had an overall lower peak inhibitors (mean 89.75 BU, range 3 – 270 BU) than the failure group (mean 353.8 BU, range 89–600 BU). Fifty percent of the failure patients had received a prior ITI attempt, where only 8% of the success group had. More patients in the failure group had received plasma derived factor VIII product for their ITI (83%) than in the success group (69%) but dosing was not significantly different (mean of 416 units/kg/week in failure group, 455 U/kg/week in success group). Overall, patient who failed stayed on ITI slightly longer (mean 20 months) than the patients who succeeded (mean 16 months). Conclusion In this limited series of adult inhibitor hemophilia patients treated with ITI, the success rate was high and comparable to that obtained in the pediatric population. Age at start of ITI did not seem to be a predictor of success, but prior ITI and historical peak inhibitor were negative predictors. Prospective clinical studies are required to expand on these preliminary findings. Disclosures: Kruse-Jarres: Bayer: Administrative and meeting support Other, Honoraria, 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)0.004
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→