ArticlePloS one2018
Predicting anti-RhD titers in donors: Boostering response and decline rates are personal.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnti-RhD immunised donors provide anti-RhD immunoglobulins used for the prevention of rhesus disease. These donors are periodically hyper-immunised (boostered) to retain a high titer level of anti-RhD. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe analysed anti-RhD donor records from 1998 to 2016, consisting of 30,116 anti-RhD titers from 755 donors, encompassing 3,372 booster events. Various models were fit to these data to allow describing the anti-RhD titers over time.
resultsA random effects model with a log-linear anti-RhD titer decline over time and a saturating titer response to boostering is shown to fit the data well. This model contains two general model parameters, relating timing and maximum of the booster effect, as well as two parameters characterizing the individual donor, namely how fast the booster effect saturates with current titer and the anti-RhD decline rate. The average individual log2 decline is 0.55 per year, i.e. a 32% decline in absolute titer, with half of the donors declining between 13% and 41% per year. Their anti-RhD titer peaks around 26 days following a booster event. Boostering response reduces with higher titers at boostering; at median titer (log2 11) the mean increase per booster is log2 0.38, that is from an absolute titer of 2048 to 2665 (+30%), with half of all donors increasing between 16% and 65% in their titer.
conclusionThe model describes anti-RhD titer change per individual with only four parameters, two of which are donor specific. This information can be used to enhance the blood bank's immunisation programme, by deriving individualized immunization policies in which boostering is adjusted to the anticipated anti-RhD decline, effectiveness of boostering and titer levels required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.