Perioperative Outcomes Associated with Inhibitor Status in Patients with Hemophilia - a Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The development of antibodies (inhibitors) to clotting factors compromises the treatment of people with Hemophilia A (HA) and B (HB), and results in ineffective clotting-factor therapy, higher risk of complications, and need for bypassing agents to achieve hemostatic control. Objectives To evaluate the association between presence of inhibitors and peri-operative hemostatic control, complications, and deviations from pre-surgery plans. Methods We conducted a retrospective study using data from the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center (IHTC) surgical database (1998 - 2019). Association between specified outcomes and inhibitor status at surgery was assessed using generalized linear models while controlling for patient and procedural characteristics. Results A total of 1,492 surgeries were conducted in 539 patients with HA or HB, 4.8%(72/1492) of which were conducted in 20 (15 HA; 5HB) patients with inhibitors. Of the 72 surgeries involving inhibitors, 30 were high-titer, 10 low-titer and 32 with unreported inhibitor titers. Adjusting for patient's age, hemophilia diagnosis, surgery setting, and surgery type, the risk of achieving perioperative hemostasis was lower in surgeries involving inhibitors compared to non-inhibitor surgeries (65.6% vs 91.4%; aRR=0.78; 95% CI= 0.61-0.99; p=0.038). Complications including hemorrhage, fever, pain, thrombosis, and infections occurred more frequently in surgeries involving inhibitors (31.7% vs 14.6%; aRR= 1.67, 95% CI= 1.07 - 2.63; p=0.025). Deviation from pre-surgical plans, usually due to the development of complications including lack of effective hemostatic control, also occurred more frequently in surgeries involving inhibitors compared to those without inhibitors (70.8 vs 39.5%; aRR= 1.63, 95% CI= 1.33 - 2.01; p<0.001). Conclusion Procedures involving patients with inhibitors have increased risk of adverse perioperative outcomes compared to those without inhibitors. Key Words: Inhibitors, Hemophilia, Surgery, Perioperative outcomes, Database. Disclosures Iorio: McMaster University: Current Employment; Bayer (funding to the institution): Research Funding; BioMarin (funding to the institution): Research Funding; NovoNordisk (funding to the institution): Research Funding; Octapharma (funding to the institution): Research Funding; Pfizer (funding to the institution): Research Funding; Roche (funding to the institution): Research Funding; Sanofi (funding to the institution): Research Funding; Sobi (funding to the institution): Research Funding; Takeda (funding to the institution): Research Funding. Malec: CSL Behring: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Matino: Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research grants and personal fees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research grants and personal fees; Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research grants and personal fees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research grants and personal fees; Spark: Other: research grants; Octopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research grants and personal fees; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: personal fees. Shapiro: Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sangamo: Other: Advisory board fees, Research Funding; Sigilon Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board fees, Research Funding; Bioverativ (a Sanofi company): Other: Advisory board fees, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisory board fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glover Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kedrion Biopharma: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Other: Advisory board fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Prometric BioTherapeutics: Research Funding; Octapharma: Research Funding; OPKO: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BioMarin: Research Funding; Takeda: 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".