Co-administration of FVIII with IVIG reduces immune response to FVIII in hemophilia A mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hemophilia A is an X-linked recessive congenital bleeding disorder. Exogenous infusion of FVIII is the treatment of choice, and the development of immunoglobulins against FVIII (inhibitors) remains the major challenge in clinical management of the disease. Here, we investigated the effect of co-administration of FVIII with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) on the development of inhibitors in previously untreated hemophilia A mice. A group of hemophilia A mice (C57BL/6FVIII−/−) received weekly injections of recombinant human FVIII (rFVIII) for twelve consecutive weeks while a second group received co-injections of rFVIII + IVIG. An in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was designed to detect antibodies to rFVIII. Every mouse in the first group developed antibodies to rFVIII. In contrast, mice treated with rFVIII + IVIG showed significantly lower antibody titers. Interestingly, when co-administration of IVIG was discontinued after 12 weeks in some mice (rFVIII continued), these mice experienced an increase in antibody titer. In contrast, mice that continued to receive rFVIII + IVIG retained significantly lower titers. In conclusion, prophylactic rFVIII co-administration with IVIG modulated the immune response to FVIII and resulted in decreased anti-FVIII antibody titer. These findings suggest that co-injection therapy with IVIG could potentially be effective in the management of hemophilia A patients at risk of inhibitor development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".