Eradication of FIX inhibitor in haemophilia B children using low‐dose immune tolerance induction with rituximab‐based immunosuppressive agent(s) in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Development of haemophilia B inhibitors (HBI) results in the ineffectiveness of FIX replacement therapy. Inhibitor eradication by immune tolerance induction (ITI) is therefore necessary. In HBI, ITI even at high FIX dose is less effective and has a higher risk of severe complications. AIM: To characterize clinical features and outcome of ITI on HBI. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in Haemophilia Paediatric Comprehensive Care Centre of China. We used low-dose ITI (25-50 FIX IU/kg/three-times-weekly to every-other-day) with domestic prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), combined with two successive immunosuppressive (IS) regimens. RESULTS: Sixteen HBI children, representing 5.7% of all and 14.4% of our severe registered HB patients, were enroled. Seven cases reported allergic reactions (ARs) proximal to inhibitor development. The historic peak inhibitor titre was median 54.2 (range 4.7-512) BU, and 15 (93.8%) had high-titre inhibitors. Twelve patients adherent to ITI were analysable. Of the nine ITI patients who received rituximab/prednisone (IS Regimen-1), four achieved tolerization in 1.4-43.3 months. Two subsequently relapsed but re-tolerized after a second course of IS Regimen-1. During ITI, the median treated bleed was .39/month (82.7% reduction from before ITI), and the incidence of AR and nephrotic syndrome (NS) complications was each at 22% (2/9). Three ITI patients received modified 'Beutel' protocol (IS Regimen-2) using multiple-IS-drugs, and two had rapid tolerization (.8 and 1.8 months). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibitor eradication could be achieved by low-dose ITI protocol using PCC combined with IS. Larger studies are needed to confirm if ITI with IS Regimen-2 is more effective with less complications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".