4.7 Article

The polygenic nature of inhibitors in hemophilia A: results from the Hemophilia Inhibitor Genetics Study (HIGS) Combined Cohort

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 121, Issue 8, Pages 1446-1454

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-06-434803

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Baxter BioScience
  2. Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health (NIH) [HHSN261200800001E]
  3. NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research
  4. Wyeth
  5. Research Fund at Malmo University Hospital
  6. NIH, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01-HD-41224]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies of determinants of development of inhibitory Abs to factor VIII in people with hemophilia A indicate a complex process involving multiple factors. The Hemophilia Inhibitor Genetics Study (HIGS) Combined Cohort was formed to extend our understanding of the genetic background of risk. The study group contains 833 subjects from 3 independent cohorts: brother pairs and singletons with and without a history of inhibitors, as well as 104 brother pairs discordant for inhibitor status. Using an Illumina iSelect platform, 13 331 single-nucleotide polymorphisms from 1081 genes, primarily immune response and immune modifier genes, were typed. Each cohort was analyzed separately with results combined using a meta-analytic technique. After adjustment for potential confounders, 53 single-nucleotide polymorphisms were found to be significant predictors of inhibitor status using the criteria of odds ratios in the same direction in all cohorts or allowing for a 20% interval around an odds ratio = 1 in 1 of the 3 and significant in at least 2. Of the 53 markers, 13 had meta P < .001. Eight of the 53 were significant predictors among the discordant pairs. Results support the complexity of the immune response and encourage further research with the goal of understanding the pathways involved. (Blood. 2013;121(8):1446-1454)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available