Table 3.

Prevalence comparisons of FVIII-binding Ig isotypes and IgG subclass antibodies with confirmed FVIII specificity

IgG subclass/Ig isotypeCohort comparison (patients with FVIII-specific Igs)Statistical testP value
Pooled Igs healthy (11) vs nsHA (33) .000*** 
healthy (11) vs sHA (10) .058 
nsHA (33) vs sHA (10) .106 
IgG1 healthy (5) vs nsHA (26) .000*** 
healthy (5) vs sHA (7) FET .043* 
nsHA (26) vs sHA (7) .104 
IgA healthy (5) vs nsHA (17) .003** 
healthy (5) vs sHA (4) FET .452 
nsHA (17) vs sHA (4) X2 .147 
IgG subclass/Ig isotypeCohort comparison (patients with FVIII-specific Igs)Statistical testP value
Pooled Igs healthy (11) vs nsHA (33) .000*** 
healthy (11) vs sHA (10) .058 
nsHA (33) vs sHA (10) .106 
IgG1 healthy (5) vs nsHA (26) .000*** 
healthy (5) vs sHA (7) FET .043* 
nsHA (26) vs sHA (7) .104 
IgA healthy (5) vs nsHA (17) .003** 
healthy (5) vs sHA (4) FET .452 
nsHA (17) vs sHA (4) X2 .147 

See Table 1 for definitions; X2, χ-squared test; FET, Fisher’s exact test; P value, level of significance (P ≤ .050).

Significant P values are indicated in bold and marked with asterisk(s): *P ≤ .050; **P ≤ .010; ***P ≤ .001.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal