ReviewFrontiers in immunology2020
Immune Responses to Plasma-Derived Versus Recombinant FVIII Products.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Inhibitor Development on the Cost Effectiveness of Prophylactic Treatment with Recombinant Factor VIII in Previously Untreated Patients with Severe Hemophilia A.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- The Epigenetic Landscape of Hemophilia.Current molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Hemostats in the clinic.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Review
- [Exploring the Causal Relationship Between Coagulation Function and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Through Mendelian Randomization].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2024Article
- Predicting inhibitor development using a random peptide phage-display library approach in the SIPPET cohort.Blood advances · 2024Article
- High levels of anti-factor VIII immunoglobulin G4 and immunoglobulin G total are associated with immune tolerance induction failure in people with congenital hemophilia A and high-responding inhibitors.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Factor IX administration in the skin primes inhibitor formation and sensitizes hemophilia B mice to systemic factor IX administration.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Building the foundation for a community-generated national research blueprint for inherited bleeding disorders: research priorities to transform the care of people with hemophilia.Expert review of hematology · 2023Article
- From a bispecific monoclonal antibody to gene therapy: A new era in the treatment of hemophilia A.Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia · 2023Review
- Patient-centered pharmacovigilance: priority actions from the inherited bleeding disorders community.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2023Review
- Impact of different factor VIII inhibitor kinetic profiles on the inhibitor titer quantification using the modified Nijmegen-Bethesda assay.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Immunogenicity of Current and New Therapies for Hemophilia A.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most severe side effect of hemophilia treatment is the inhibitor development occurring in 30% of patients, during the earliest stages of treatment with factor (F)VIII concentrates. These catastrophic immune responses rapidly inactivate the infused FVIII, rendering the treatment ineffective. This complication is associated with a substantial morbidity and mortality. The risk factors involved in the onset of the inhibitors are both genetic and environmental. The source of FVIII products, i.e. plasma-derived or recombinant FVIII products, is considered one of the most relevant factors for inhibitor development. Numerous studies in the literature report conflicting data on the different immunogenicity of the products. The SIPPET randomized trial showed an increased in the inhibitor rate in patients using recombinant FVIII products than those receiving plasma-derived products in the first exposure days. The SIPPET randomized trial showed an increase in the inhibitor rate in patients using recombinant FVIII products compared to those treated with plasma-derived products in the first days of exposure. The potential increase in the immunogenicity of recombinant products can be attributed to several factors such as: the different post-translational modification in different cell lines, the presence of protein aggregates, and the role played by the chaperon protein of FVIII, the von Willebrand factor, which modulates the uptake of FVIII by antigen presenting cells (APCs). Furthermore, the presence of non-neutralizing antibodies against FVIII has shown to be in increased inhibitor development as demonstrated in a sub-analysis of the SIPPET study. In addition, the presence of the specific subclasses of the immunoglobulins may also be an important biomarker to indicate whether the inhibitor will evolve into a persistent neutralizing antibody or a transient one that would disappear without any specific treatment. Recently, the availability of novel non-replacement therapies as well as emicizumab, administered by weekly subcutaneous infusion, have significantly changed the quality of life of patients with inhibitors showing a considerable reduction of the annual bleeding rate and in most patients the absence of bleeding. Although, these novel drugs improve patients' quality of life, they do not abolish the need to infuse FVIII during acute bleeding or surgery. Therefore, the issue of immunogenicity against FVIII still remains an important side effect of hemophilia treatment.
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.