MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414255072 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1651895

The use of Eculizumab and Tocilizumab in the treatment of Hyperhemolysis syndrome, a comprehensive literature review

2025· article· en· W4414255072 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Aqel, Yousef Al-Asa’d, Salam Alkindi, Jaafar Altouk, Abdullah Al Zayed, Abdulrahman Al‐Abdulmalek, Mohamed A. Yassin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersQatar National Library
KeywordsEculizumabTocilizumabPathophysiologyComplement systemComplicationRefractory (planetary science)HemolysisAcute chest syndrome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperhemolysis syndrome (HHS) is a rare but severe complication of red blood cell transfusion, characterized by the destruction of both the patient's and donor's red blood cells. This condition results in post-transfusion hemoglobin levels lower than pre-transfusion levels, often leading to profound anemia, tissue ischemia, and multiorgan failure. HHS predominantly affects individuals with hemoglobinopathies, particularly sickle cell disease. While the pathophysiology remains poorly understood, proposed mechanisms include bystander hemolysis via complement activation, suppression of erythropoiesis, macrophage-mediated RBC destruction. Refractory cases of HHS are managed with Eculizumab and Tocilizumab, targeting the complement pathway and macrophage activation, respectively. This review analyzed 22 reported cases of HHS identified through PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. Of these, 11 patients received Eculizumab, 10 received Tocilizumab, and 1 received both. The cohort had an mean age of 29.5 years, with 36.4% male and 63.6% female. Most patients had underlying hemoglobinopathies. Outcomes showed improvement in 18 patients without major side effects, while 1 patient showed no improvement, and 3 patients passed away. Despite promising results, concurrent use of other immune-modulating agents during treatment complicates attributing the observed efficacy to specific medications alone. Further studies are required to further evaluate the pathophysiology of HHS and assess the safety and effectiveness of these novel therapies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207