Intermediate-dose immune tolerance induction outperforms with faster success, less bleeding, and no added cost in comparison with low dose: a multicenter randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low-dose (LD) or intermediate-dose (MD) immune tolerance induction (ITI) is effective in children with severe hemophilia A (SHA) with high-titer inhibitors (HTIs) and is attractive in countries with economic constraints. However, high-quality evidence of their use is lacking. Objectives: This was a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy, safety, and medication cost between LD-ITI and MD-ITI for SHA-HTI children. Methods: Children with SHA aged <8 years with historical/pre-ITI inhibitor titer 5 to 200 Bethesda Units/mL in 3 centers were randomized 1:1 to receive LD-ITI (recombinant factor VIII [rFVIII] 50 IU/kg every other day) or MD-ITI (rFVIII 100 IU/kg/d) from January 2022 to June 2024 (ChiCTR2200056603, https://www.chictr.org.cn). Results: Thirty-one patients (16 in MD-ITI and 15 in LD-ITI) were enrolled and followed for >24 months (median, 26.9; range, 24.0-29.5 months). The 2 groups had similar baseline clinical characteristics and similar success rates (93.8% [MD-ITI] vs 86.7% [LD-ITI]). Compared with LD-ITI, MD-ITI patients took a shorter median time to success (4.2 months vs 10.1 months) and partial success (2.7 months vs 6.6 months) and had lower mean rates for all bleeding (0.38/mo vs 1.40/mo) and joint bleeding (0.11/mo vs 0.83/mo). Between the 2 groups, although the MD-ITI group had higher rFVIII consumption (12,775 vs 7680 IU/kg), their total medication costs to success were similar (3626.49 vs 3240.38 US$/kg). Conclusion: For SHA-HTI children, the success rate and cost for MD-ITI and LD-ITI regimens were similar. MD-ITI regimen would be a priority for regions with economic constraints, considering the shorter time to success, better bleeding control, and no increase in medication cost.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".