Relative Efficacy of Steroid Therapy in Ameliorating Autoimmune Thrombocytopenia Mediated by Anti-Platelet GPIIbIIIa Versus GPIbα Antibodies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 1323 Poster Board I-345 Background Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is a common autoimmune disease characterized by autoantibody-induced platelet destruction and consequent bleeding disorders. Despite considerable investigation, the pathogenesis of ITP remains incompletely understood, and we currently lack a consensus for therapy. The major targeted platelet autoantigens are located on two distinctive platelet receptors; the GPIIbIIIa and GPIb complexes. It has been reported that thrombocytopenia induced by anti-GPIba antibodies, which may differ from that induced by anti-GPIIbIIIa, can be mediated via an Fc-independent pathway. We further demonstrated in a murine model that anti-GPIba-mediated-ITP is less responsive to IVIG treatment (Blood. 2006; 108(3):943-6), which is consistent with a subsequent retrospective study in human ITP patients. Since IVIG is expensive and steroid therapy is the first line of treatment for most patients, particularly in developing countries, we tested whether gluococorticosteroid therapy has equal efficacy in ITP patients caused by these two different antibodies. Patients and Methods A total of 107 ITP patients (71 females and 36 males) were recruited for the present study. Patients were first treated with Dexamethasone (DXM, 20mg/day x 3-5 days), then changed to oral administration of Prednisone (1mg/kg/day). The dose of Prednisone was gradually decreased and maintained for = 30 days. The patients were considered as responders to the therapy if no obvious haemorrhage was detected and their platelet counts were raised to = 50 × 109/L or increased by = 30 × 109/L from their original platelet count before treatment. All patients' plasma samples were collected before therapy and specific autoantibodies against GPIIbIIIa and/or the GPIb complex were measured with a monoclonal antibody immobilization of platelet antigen assay (MAIPA). Results Among the 107 patients, 23% (25/107) had antibodies against GPIIbIIIa, 18% (19/107) had antibodies against the GPIb complex, 34% (36/107) had antibodies against both the GPIIbIIIa and GPIb complex, and 25% (27/107) had no detectable antibody to either of these two antigens. We found that a majority of the patients with antibodies against GPIIbIIIa (15/22) were sensitive to the steroid therapy, which is significantly different from those with antibodies against the GPIb complex (5/19) (X2 = 7.15, P <0.01) or those with antibodies against both the GPIb complex and GPIIbIIIa (6/34) (X2 = 14.5, P <0.01). Although no statistically significant difference was observed between patients with anti-GPIb antibodies and those with both anti-GPIb and anti-GPIIbIIIa antibodies (X2 = 0.55, P >0.05), there is a tendency that patients with double positive antibodies were less responsive to steroid therapy therapy. The most sensitive patients for this therapy were those without detectable antibodies to either of these two autoantigens (21/27). Conclusions Our data suggest that anti-GPIb-mediated ITP may be less responsive to both IVIG and steroid therapies when compared to anti-GPIIbIIIa-mediated ITP. The pathogenesis and treatment of anti-GPIb-mediated ITP merits further investigation. 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".