MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2989468714 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-122260

The Frequency and Effect of Baseline Cross-Reacting and De Novo Inhibitors to Recombinant Porcine FVIII in Patients with Congenital and Acquired Hemophilia a

2019· article· en· W2989468714 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyne Elbaz, Katerina Pavenski, Hina Chaudhry, Jerome Teitel, Michelle Sholzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntibodyRecombinant factor VIIaRecombinant DNAIsoantibodiesAutoantibodyImmunologyCoagulationNijmegen breakage syndromeInternal medicineBiochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Patients with severe congenital hemophilia A (CHA) have a 25-40% lifetime risk of alloantibody (inhibitor) development to FVIII. Patients with acquired hemophilia A (AHA) spontaneously develop neutralizing autoantibodies to factor VIII. In both cases, patients require pro-hemostatic therapy with bypassing agents: recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa), activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) and more recently recombinant porcine factor VIII (rpFVIII). Anti-human FVIII (hFVIII) inhibitors typically bind to the A2 and C2 domains of the FVIII molecule. RpFVIII is an effective pro-hemostatic treatment for AHA and CHA given the immunologic difference in the A2 and C2 domains of the rpFVIII while maintaining sufficient hFVIII homology to act as an effective cofactor to human FIX in the intrinsic tenase. However, some anti-hFVIII antibodies cross-react with rpFVIII and may interfere with its hemostatic function. Cross-reacting antibodies were reported in 35% of subjects in a phase II/III trial prior to initiation of rpFVIII. Moreover, de novo rpFVIII inhibitors may develop during or after the treatment with rpFVIII and may affect its hemostatic function. Here we describe the largest case series to date on baseline cross-reactivity of rpFVIII inhibitors and post-treatment de novo inhibitor development in patients with CHA and AHA to address the paucity of published literature in this area. Aim First, we describe the frequency of baseline cross-reacting rpFVIII inhibitors in patients with AHA and CHA (with inhibitors) at our institution. Second, we describe the effect of baseline rpFVIII antibodies on FVIII recovery after treatment with rpFVIII. We also describe the frequency and timing of de novo rpFVIII inhibitor development after exposure to rpFVIII. Methods Institutional research ethics board approval was obtained. Electronic charts of patients admitted to our institution with AHA or CHA who underwent testing for rpFVIII inhibitors were reviewed retrospectively. RpFVIII inhibitor assay is performed in the special coagulation laboratory using the Nijmegen modified Bethesda assay. The patient sample is initially heat-treated at 57 Results Twenty-seven patients (7 CHA, 20 AHA) underwent testing for porcine inhibitors since assay availability in 2016. 61% (5/7 CHA, 11/20 AHA) of patients had a detectable rpFVIII inhibitor prior to exposure to rpFVIII; median titer 1.6 BU/ml (range 0.6-192). Eight patients with AHA with baseline cross-reacting inhibitors received rpFVIII. Of those, three achieved an initial FVIII recovery beyond 100% (132%, 148% and 177%) after approximately 100U/kg of rpFVIII and all three had very low anti-rpFVIII Bethesda titers (0.70, 0.85 and 0.9 BU/ml). Five patients did not achieve a FVIII recovery above 50% (46%, 46%, 40%, 36% and 0%) despite approximately 100U/kg of rpFVIII. Most patients who received rpFVIII were tested weekly for the duration of their treatment or hospital stay. Upon discharge, patients who were seen in clinic for follow up were tested for anti-hFVIII and anti-rpFVIII. Two AHA patients without a baseline inhibitor who received rpFVIII treatment developed a de novo inhibitor after 20 days (1 BU/ml) and 133 days (12 BU/ml), respectively. One AHA patient had a rise in baseline anti-rpFVIII titer after exposure to rpFVIII. Conclusion In conclusion, we found that 61% of patients with AHA and CHA tested for rpFVIII inhibitors had a detectable baseline cross-reacting inhibitor which is higher than previously described. Of those patients with a baseline inhibitor treated with rpFVIII, only 37.5% of patients had an appropriate rise in FVIII. Finally, 13% of patients without baseline inhibitors developed a de novo inhibitor after exposure to rpFVIII, an incidence comparable to previously published findings. Disclosures Pavenski: Bioverativ: Research Funding; Alexion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Octapharma: Research Funding; Shire: Honoraria; Ablynx: Honoraria, Research Funding. Teitel:BioMarin: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sholzberg:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Baxter: Honoraria, Research Funding; Baxalta: Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Recombinant porcine factor VIII is used to treated patients with congenital hemophilia A with allo inhibitors

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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