MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2909444021 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-114518

99.3% of Inhibitors in Severe Hemophilia a Develop before Exposure Day 75. Time to Change Definition of Previously Treated Patients; Data from 1038 Patients with Severe Hemophilia a of the Pednet Registry

2018· article· en· W2909444021 on OpenAlexaff
Marijke van den Berg, Kathelijn Fischer, Elena Santagostino, Hérvè Chambost, Karin Kurnik, Gili Kenet, Christoph Male, Anne Rafowicz, Helen Platokouki, Susanna Ranta, Chris Van Geet, Johannes Oldenburg, Ri Liesner, Segolene Claeyssens, Nadine Gretenkort-Andersson, Anne Mäkipernaa, Torben Stamm Mikkelsen, Manuel Carção, Beatrice Nolan, Liz Chalmers, Ana Rosa Cid, Teresa Álvarez-Roman, Carmen Altisent, Georges E. Rivard, Claudio Molinari, Martina Buehrlen, Rainer Kobelt, Carmen Escuriola, Manuela Carvalho, Christoph Koenigs, Mike Williams, Rolf Ljung

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTiterIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineFactor IXAntibodyPediatricsGastroenterologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction.In patients with hemophilia treated with factor VIII products, the development of inhibitory antibodies poses the largest safety risk. Especially during the first 50 exposure days (EDs), up to 37% of patients with severe hemophilia A have been reported to develop an inhibitor. To study neo-immunogenicity of products and new treatment strategies, patients have been distinguished into previously untreated (PUPs) and previously treated patients (PTPs); the latter defined as patients treated for more than 150 EDs. The number of 150 EDs was established in the eighties during a time when most patients received on-demand treatment and testing for inhibitors was not frequently performed. More recent studies on inhibitor incidence in PUPs with severe hemophilia A report that 50% of inhibitors develop within 14-15 EDs, however the cut-off number of EDs for a PUP to become a PTP is not well defined. The aim of this study was to define the number of EDs for PUPs to become PTPs based on long-term follow-up of patients with severe hemophilia A Methods.All patients with severe hemophilia A born after January 1, 2000, treated for at least 1 ED and followed prospectively until inhibitor development or the number of EDs at last follow-up, were included. The number of EDs at inhibitor development is the last exposure day before the first positive titer was reported. An inhibitor was defined as positive when at least two positive inhibitor titers were measured. Positivity was defined according to the cut-off level in each individual center's laboratory. Results.Of 1,038 PUPs with severe hemophilia A, 930 (89.6%) were followed until 75 EDs, 429 until 500 EDs and 212 until 1000 EDs. In total, 300 inhibitors developed, of which 298 (99.3%) within the first 75 EDs. Thereafter only two inhibitors developed, both low titer: after 249 and 264 EDs. Conclusion.Almost all inhibitors develop during the first 75 EDs. Patients with severe hemophilia A can be defined as PTP after 75 instead of 150 exposure days. A change of definition of PTP will increase the number of severe hemophilia A patients eligible for new therapies. Disclosures Santagostino: Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kedrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Grifols: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Male:SOBI: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Speakers Bureau; Biotest: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Oldenburg:Novo Nordisk: 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; Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biogen Idec: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Grifols: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biotest: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Swedish Orphan Biovitrum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Liesner:Baxalta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy, Other: Clinical study investigator for NuProtect Study (Octapharma sponsored), Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Carcao:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: 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; Grifols: 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; CSL-Behring: 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; Bioverativ/Sanofi: 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; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nolan:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Álvarez-Roman:Shire: Consultancy; NovoNordisk: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy. Koenigs:Gilead: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Intersero: Research Funding; Bioverativ: Consultancy; Roche/Chugai: Consultancy; EU (IMI, FP7): Research Funding; Sobi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Biotest: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jansen: 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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