ArticleThrombosis journal2023
Application of a scoring system in Japanese patients diagnosed with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome to assess the relationship between the score and clinical responses to eculizumab.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) is caused by complement dysregulation and is generally diagnosed by exclusion from other disorders of thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). Eculizumab, a terminal complement inhibitor, has been approved for aHUS treatment since 2013 in Japan. Recently, a scoring system was published to support diagnosis of aHUS. Herein we modified this scoring system to apply it to patients diagnosed with aHUS and treated with eculizumab, and assessed the association between the score and clinical responses to eculizumab.
methodsOne hundred eighty-eight Japanese patients who were clinically diagnosed with aHUS, treated with eculizumab, and enrolled in post-marketing surveillance (PMS) were included in this analysis. Some of parameters in the original scoring system were replaced with clinically similar parameters collected in the PMS to modify the system, hereafter referred to as the TMA/aHUS score, which ranges from -15 to 20 points. Treatment responses within 90 days after eculizumab initiation were also assessed, and the relationship between treatment response and TMA/aHUS scores calculated at TMA onset was explored.
resultsThe median (range) TMA/aHUS score was 10 (3-16). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the cutoff value of TMA/aHUS score to predict treatment response to eculizumab was estimated as 10, and negative predictive value indicated that ≥ 5 points was appropriate to consider assessing the treatment response to eculizumab; 185 (98%) patients had ≥ 5 points and 3 (2%) had < 5 points. Among the patients with ≥ 5 points, 96.1% showed partial response and 31.1% showed complete response. One of the three patients with < 5 points met partial response criteria. No significant difference in the TMA/aHUS scores was observed between survivors and non-survivors, suggesting that the score was not appropriate to predict the outcome (i.e., survival/death) in patients treated with eculizumab.
conclusionAlmost all patients clinically diagnosed with aHUS scored ≥ 5 points and responded to eculizumab. The TMA/aHUS score system could become a supporting tool for the clinical diagnosis of aHUS and probability of response to treatment with a C5 inhibitor.
trial registrationThis study was conducted as per good PMS practice guidelines for drugs (MHLW Ministerial Ordinance No. 171 of 2004).
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.