4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Immune tolerance: critical issues of factor dose, purity and treatment complications

期刊

HAEMOPHILIA
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 81-85

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2006.01376.x

关键词

complications; factor VIII; factor IX; immune tolerance; inhibitors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current practice of immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy has been largely influenced by the results of small institutional studies and three large registries. However, many questions remain. Successful outcome predictors for ITI in haemophilia A have been suggested by the analyses of two of these registries. Among these predictors, factor VIII (FVIII) dose/dosing regimen remains a controversial outcome parameter, demonstrating a strong direct relationship to ITI success in the international registry and a weaker inverse relationship in the North American registry. There is an international multicentre prospective randomized trial underway to further study the role of FVIII dose in successful ITI induction in a good risk haemophilia A inhibitor patient cohort. FVIII purity also remains an unproved ITI outcome predictor. Institutional experience with von-Willebrand-factor-containing products has suggested its therapeutic advantage in both inhibitor development and eradication. The International ITI Study, although not designed to answer this particular question, may be able to determine an impact on outcome depending on the final distribution of investigator choice of product among the study subjects. Much less is known about the influence of factor IX (FIX) dose and purity on ITI success in haemophilia B. Importantly, nephrotic syndrome has been a major determinant of ITI failure in FIX inhibitor patients, particularly those with the allergic phenotype. Unfortunately, large prospective randomized trials in this group will not be feasible. Rather, we will have to rely on prospectively collected registry data to build our knowledge base of inhibitors and ITI in haemophilia B.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据