The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The principal results of the International Immune Tolerance Study: a randomized dose comparison
Open accessAbstract
The International Immune Tolerance Study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized comparison of high-dose (HD; 200 IU/kg/d) and low-dose (LD; 50 IU/kg 3 times/week) factor VIII regimens in 115 “good-risk,” severe high-titer inhibitor hemophilia A subjects. Sixty-six of 115 subjects reached the defined study end points: success, n = 46 (69.7%); partial response, n = 3 (4.5%); and failure, n = 17 (25.8%). Successes did not differ between treatment arms (24 of 58 LD vs 22/57 HD, P = .909). The times taken to achieve a negative titer (P = .027), a normal recovery (P = .002), and tolerance (P = .116, nonsignificant) were shorter with the HD immune tolerance induction (ITI). Peak historical (P = .026) and on-ITI (P = .002) titers were correlated inversely with success, but only peak titer on ITI predicted outcome in a multivariate analysis (P = .002). LD subjects bled more often (odds ratio, 2.2; P = .0019). The early bleed rate/month was 0.62 (LD) and 0.28 (HD; P = .000 24), decreasing by 90% once negative titers were achieved. Bleeding was absent in 8 of 58 LD versus 21 of 57 HD subjects (P = .0085). One hundred twenty-four central catheter infections were reported in 41 subjects (19 LD); infection frequency did not differ between the treatment arms. Neither bleeding nor infection influenced outcome. Although it was stopped early for futility and safety considerations, this trial contributed valuable data toward evidence-based ITI practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The past and future of haemophilia: diagnosis, treatments, and its complications
Peyvandi, F., Garagiola, I., & Young, G. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01123-x · Cited by 505
Factor VIII–Mimetic Function of Humanized Bispecific Antibody in Hemophilia A
Shima, M., Hanabusa, H., Taki, M., Matsushita, T., Sato, T., Fukutake, K., Fukazawa, N., Yoneyama, K., Yoshida, H., & Nogami, K. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1511769 · Cited by 478
Crudele, J. M., Finn, J. D., Siner, J. I., Martin, N. B., Niemeyer, G. P., Zhou, S., Mingozzi, F., Lothrop, C. D., & Arruda, V. R. (2015) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2014-07-588194 · Cited by 153
Protein-Engineered Coagulation Factors for Hemophilia Gene Therapy
Samelson-Jones, B. J., & Arruda, V. R. (2019) · Molecular Therapy - Methods & Clinical Development · doi:10.1016/j.omtm.2018.12.007 · Cited by 58
Obstacles and future of gene therapy for hemophilia
Arruda, V. R., & Samelson-Jones, B. J. (2015) · Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs · doi:10.1517/21678707.2015.1069179 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Hay, C. R. M., & DiMichele, D. M.
- Venue
- Blood
- Publisher
- American Society of Hematology
- Published
- 2012-02-09
- Volume
- 119
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1335-1344
- ISSN
- 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
- 1528-0020
- OpenAlex
- W2072864431
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The principal results of the International Immune Tolerance Study: a randomized dose comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2011-08-369132
- The paper
- Hay, C. R. M., & DiMichele, D. M. (2012). The principal results of the International Immune Tolerance Study: a randomized dose comparison. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-08-369132
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.