MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Prevalence of Anti-Factor VIII Antibodies in the Hemophilia A Population of the Quebec Province of Canada: Results of Testing with the Bethesda/Nijmegen Assay and with Three ELISA Assays.

2009· article· en· W2588854745 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne-Marie Vincent, David Lillicrap, Angie Tuttle, Laurence Dedeken, Christine Demers, Mariette Lépine, Jean St‐Louis, Margaret R. Warner, Georges E. Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusQueen's UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHaemophiliaPopulationHaemophilia AAntibodyRoche DiagnosticsRecombinant DNATiterImmunologyInternal medicinePediatricsBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1308 Poster Board I-330 Introduction The development of anti-Factor VIII antibodies (FVIII Abs) is the most serious complication of the treatment of hemophilia A. The prevalence and incidence of FVIII Abs is usually assessed by the functional Bethesda/Nijmegen assay. We hypothesized that some FVIII Abs might not be detected by the Bethesda/Nijmegen assay but would be apparent in an ELISA assay. The FVIII Ab ELISA may be more sensitive or it may be detecting Abs against both functional and non-functional epitopes of FVIII. Subjects and Methods In the Province of Quebec (population 7.8 × 106), all subjects with hemophilia must be registered with one of the four designated hemophilia centers to be allowed to be treated with FVIII concentrates. Over the last year, blood specimens were obtained from all registered severe hemophilia A subjects to be tested for FVIII Abs. Citrated plasma specimens obtained more than 48 hours after the last FVIII treatment were tested with the Bethesda/Nijmegen assay and three described ELISAs (Haemophilia 2009;15:374-6) using as the coating antigen two different full-length recombinant FVIII (FLRFVIII) concentrates, Helixate® FS and Advate® respectively, and a B domain-deleted recombinant FVIII (BDDRFVIII) concentrate, Xyntha®. Six normal plasmas were used as negative controls on each ELISA plate. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of absorbance were calculated for the total of all the plates used for each of the three coating antigens. Results were considered positive with Bethesda unit (BU) ≥ 0.4 /mL and ELISA absorbance ≥ 3 standard deviations (SD) of the mean of the normal plasmas. Results At time of writing this abstract ≥ 80% of the target subjects have been tested and the remaining are being tested. Twelve out of 114 (10.5 %) are positive with the Bethesda/Nijmegen assay. Eleven out of these 12 are ELISA positive. Ten out of the 102 Bethesda negative subjects (9.8 %) are positive for the FLRFVIII ELISAs, all of them being negative for the BDDRFVIII ELISA. The titre of FVIII Abs measured by the Bethesda assay was highly correlated (R=0.93) with the titre measured with the three ELISAs. Conclusion Our observed prevalence (10.5%) of Bethesda positive subjects is comparable with values reported in similar unselected severe hemophilia A populations. There is no published literature with which to compare our observed prevalence of 9.8% of ELISA positive amongst Bethesda negative subjects. Bethesda negative plasmas that are positive for the FLRFVIII ELISAs and negative for the BDDRFVIII ELISA are presumed to have FVIII Abs directed against the B domain of the FLRFVIII concentrates. The clinical significance of this observation is presently unknown but is being investigated with pharmacokinetic studies. 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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
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 venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→