MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2908000108 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-110467

Real-World Data of Immune Tolerance Induction Using rFVIIIFc in Subjects With Severe Hemophilia A With Inhibitors at High Risk for ITI Failure

2018· article· en· W2908000108 on OpenAlexaffabout
Manuel Carção, Amy D. Shapiro, Nina Hwang, Steven W. Pipe, Sanjay Ahuja, Kenneth Lieuw, Janice M. Staber, Haowei Sun, Hilda Ding, Michael Wang, MacGregor Steele, Elisa Tsao, Jing Feng, Zahra Alkhateeb, Jennifer Dumont, Nisha Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineImmune toleranceImmunologyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the standard of care for eradication of inhibitors in subjects with severe hemophilia A. ITI is not always effective and can require a lengthy and burdensome treatment regimen. Those who have previously failed ITI are more likely to fail subsequent ITI. The successful use of recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) for ITI was described in our initial retrospective review of 19 high-risk subjects, including first-time and rescue ITI subjects (Carcao et al, Haemophilia, 2018). These findings indicated that time to tolerization appears to be faster with rFVIIIFc, despite a high-risk profile. It has been postulated that the Fc domain of rFVIIIFc may promote tolerization due to immunomodulatory properties. We report characteristics and ITI outcomes of 6 newly identified subjects, as well as follow-up data from 12 of the 19 subjects included in the original analysis. Methods: A follow-up of subjects enrolled in the original retrospective chart review and clinical outcomes of newly identified males with severe hemophilia A and historical high-titer inhibitors (≥5 BU) treated with rFVIIIFc for ITI is reported from 12 sites in the US and Canada. De-identified data were collected via electronic surveys. This interim analysis was performed on aggregated data collected through July 6, 2018. Data collection is ongoing, with 29 subject charts (19 original subjects and an additional 10) expected by October. Results: Of 25 charts reviewed to date, 9 were first-time ITI and 16 were rescue ITI subjects. Of 9 first-time ITI charts, 7 subjects were from the original study (4 had follow-up data), and 2 subjects were newly identified. Of 16 rescue ITI charts, 12 subjects were from the original study (8 with follow-up data), and 4 subjects were newly identified. All but 1 subject in the first-time ITI group had ≥1 high-risk feature. The median (range) age (n=9) at initiation of rFVIIIFc ITI was 1.4 (0.8-4.3) years and the median (range) time from inhibitor detection to initiation of rFVIIIFc ITI was 1.5 (0-9.4) months (Table 1). The median (range) inhibitor titer at rFVIIIFc ITI initiation was 32 (3-1126) BU/mL, and the dosing regimen of rFVIIIFc ranged from 50 IU/kg 3 times per week (TIW) to 200 IU/kg daily. All 16 rescue ITI subjects had high-risk features. The median (range) age at rFVIIIFc ITI initiation was 7.8 (1.6-48.9) years, with a median (range) time from inhibitor detection to initiation of rFVIIIFc ITI of 7.1 (0.6-43) years (Table 1). The median (range) number of prior ITI courses was 2.5 (1-7). The median (range) inhibitor titer at rFVIIIFc ITI start was 24.2 (0.6-237) BU/mL, and the dosing regimen of rFVIIIFc ranged from 43 IU/kg TIW to 200 IU/kg daily. Eight of 9 first-time ITI subjects achieved a negative Bethesda titer in a median (range) time of 27.2 (3-64.1) weeks and mean (standard deviation [SD]) time of 25.9 (20.7) weeks. All 8 were subsequently tolerized with a median (range) time to tolerization of 29.7 (3-64.1) weeks and a mean (SD) time to tolerization of 33.4 (20.4) weeks (Table 2). One of the 8 subjects, although he achieved a negative Bethesda titer and ultimately was tolerized (time to tolerization: 59 weeks), did so after a complicated course of ITI: he was initially on rFVIIIFc ITI for 15 weeks then was switched to plasma-derived FVIII ITI for 12 weeks. Owing to lack of reduction in inhibitor titer, the subject was switched back to rFVIIIFc ITI. Fourteen weeks later he became Bethesda titer‒negative and achieved tolerance 18 weeks after that. The 9th subject had a reduced titer and continues on rFVIIIFc ITI. Eight of 16 rescue ITI subjects reached negative Bethesda titer in a median (range) time of 29.6 (3-70) weeks (Table 2) and a mean (SD) of 34.9 (25.6) weeks. Of these, 2 subjects were tolerized at 23.1 and 35 weeks, respectively; both have transitioned to rFVIIIFc prophylaxis. Eight subjects continue on rFVIIIFc ITI and 6 transitioned to other ITI treatment regimens. Conclusions: A rapid time to tolerization was achieved in high-risk first-time ITI subjects in a real-world setting. ITI with rFVIIIFc led to rapid negative inhibitor titer in most first-time ITI subjects and many rescue ITI subjects. Faster time to tolerization is expected to improve subject's quality of life, joint health, and healthcare utilization. Findings from this study are being tested in 2 prospective trials using rFVIIIFc for ITI in subjects with hemophilia A with inhibitors (first time and rescue). Disclosures Carcao: Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biotest: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Grifols: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL-Behring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bioverativ/Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LFB: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shapiro:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sangamo Biosciences: Consultancy; Genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bio Products Laboratory: Consultancy; Bioverativ, a Sanofi Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioMarin: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prometic Life Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Other: International Network of Pediatric Hemophilia; Octapharma: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; OPKO: Research Funding; Kedrion Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hwang:Bioverativ: Other: PI in clinical research study; Shire: Consultancy; Hema Biologics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BPI: Consultancy. Pipe:Catalyst Biosciences: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Freeline: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; uniQure: Consultancy; Biomarin: Consultancy; Apcintex: Consultancy; Ainylam: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Bioverativ: Consultancy; Nove Nordisk: Consultancy; Siemens: Research Funding; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy; R2 Diagnostics: Research Funding. Ahuja:Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Honoraria; Bioverativ: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Staber:uniQure: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; NovoNordisk: Consultancy. Sun:Octapharma: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy. Ding:Bioverativ: Other: Site PI for clinical research study. Wang:Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Genentech, HEMA Biologics, Shire, CSL Behring: Honoraria; Bayer, Bioverative, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Shire, Genentech, Biomarain, Pfizer, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Terumo BCT: Other: CPC Clinical Research; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy. Steele:Baxter/SHIRE: Other: Travel, Hotel; Bayer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Tsao:Bioverativ: Employment. Feng:Bioverativ: Employment. Al-Khateeb:Bioverativ: Other: Consultancy (via Trinity Partners, LLC). Dumont:Bioverativ: Employment. Jain:Bioverativ: Employment.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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