A randomized multicenter study: safety and efficacy of mini‐pool intravenous immunoglobulin versus standard immunoglobulin in children aged 1‐18 years with immune thrombocytopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Because there is a global shortage of intravenous immunoglobulin, there is a need for new products to fill the gap. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This was a multicenter, open‐label study investigating the safety and efficacy of a newly developed mini‐pool intravenous immunoglobulin G for children with immune thrombocytopenia. Seventy‐two patients ages 1 to 18 years with newly diagnosed (<1 month) immune thrombocytopenia who had platelet counts from 5 to 20 × 10 9 /L with no serious bleeding were recruited from four centers in Egypt. Eligible patients were randomized into three groups 1:1:1. Group A (n = 24) received blood group–specific mini‐pool intravenous immunoglobulin in a dose equivalent to immunoglobulin 1 g/kg over 6 to 8 hours, Group B (n = 24) received standard intravenous immunoglobulin (approximately 1g/kg) as a single dose, and Group C (n = 24) did not receive any platelet‐enhancing therapy. Parents signed informed consent. RESULTS Of the patients who received mini‐pool intravenous immunoglobulin, 14 achieved a complete response (CR) (58.8%), and four had a response (16.6%). Of the patients who received intravenous immunoglobulin G, 16 achieved a complete response (66.6%), and four had a response (16.6%). In Group C, eight patients achieved a complete response (33.3%), and four had a response (16.6%). The median time to response was 8, 9, and 21 days in Group A, B, and C, respectively, which was significantly higher in Group C than Groups A and B (p < 0.001). Patients in Groups A and B reported 16 adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSION Mini‐pool intravenous immunoglobulin G was well tolerated, presented no safety issues, and was effective in the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia, with efficacy comparable to that of the standard intravenous immunoglobulin G group, and it was significantly more effective than no treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".