A Very Large Update (apologies)
We had an extensive conversation with our doctors today armed with the information you gave us so in that respect it was extremely useful and for that alone we so very grateful.
First things first,
Sophia's type has been classified as beta -Delta beta Lepore. (Her genotype of beta genes was CD39/ delta beta Lepore) .
Also, her blood was initially checked genetically so they have the starting baseline (which is important since it establishes her actual own immune reactions).
On the question of if they genotype test the blood I got an answer that I'm not sure is complete: I was told that -beyond cross check, washing and filtering- all potential donor blood for Sophia is checked against the basic known antibodies on the basis of her initial baseline.
I know it sounds silly for not clarifying but you know how it is, you receive an answer and think you are satisfied with it only to mull it some more later on and wonder if you actually
did get an answer... medical issues are particularly suited for such incidents
I'll look into it again but I have the feeling that we don't have genotype testing. In the near future I'll bring up the possibility of genotyping the donor's blood -if necessary by sending it abroad. I can already anticipate that sending blood samples outside being a huge problem. They are a specialized comprehensive center under the state health system and the system is set up so that it isn't prone to accept tests done elsewhere.
Still, the people (as opposed to the system) are great and very cooperative so there is hope.
I brought up Rituximab and they were quite aware of it but seemed to have serious concerns about its toxicity. When I pressed the issue I got the feeling that when everything is said and done their cost/benefit analysis is that they prefer a small prednisone dose along with transfusions. The dose comes down to 1.5 mg per kg every 14 days which is not a large dose.
Right now, I think we won't press the issue for 2 reasons. A) We still need to see if our son is HLA compatible which could in theory change matters and B) It seems that the current regime is working. If b changes I think we'll rethink and the important thing is that (thank you Sharmin!)
we now have an option.
A final thing that emerged from the conversation we had and might be interesting: while discussing the pros and cons of rituximab I brought up the fact that a possible success with dealing with hemolysis might open the way for trying a splenectomy if we had the hemolytic anemia under control (at a later date) so as to reduce the transfusion needs and rely on Sophia's Hbf which -now suppressed- is naturally very high.
Surprisingly (to me at least) this was something that they are quite against.
They argued that the quality of Hbf is extremely low (Hbf -fetal hemoglobin, that Sophia's type has very high) is quite inefficient and that, in their department's experience (they regularly manage 450 thal children) relying on it leads to several problems including cardiological ones. Obviously, if a child has sufficiently high Hbf and no stress on her bones they might monitor and start transfusions later (we had to start because bone indications showed that we should) but I got the feeling that in the past, children with high Fetal hemoglobin relied on the Hbf too much to their detriment.
The head of the department is Dr. Karagiorga-Lagana, an extremely able, soft-spoken and accomplished physician who has done extensive work on the matter of cardiological problems in beta thalassemia so I'd like to bring this to the forum irrespective of Sophia because it went counter to my expectations:
They seemed to be saying that it might be preferable to start transfusing (If you have access to comprehensive care, regular chelation, iron monitoring etc.,) rather than rely on a minimally "serviceable" HbF count of e.g. 8.
One final thing that came in this conversation and which I found very encouraging (and which, if you think it's useful I'll repost in the 'Searching for a cure' category).
When discussing gene therapy, towards which they are understandably cautious, I was told that while indeed we need a breakthrough on how long the therapies are effective. -Andy mentioned, I believe, 6 months efficacy in another post - there are positive signs in working under a different logic:
-So far the idea has been inserting a healthy gene.
It seems that several teams are returning and looking again at the possibility of not 'exchanging' but rather 'repairing' the existing sequence.
In the past this was not pursued as rigorously for a variety of reasons but now this avenue is opening up again and it would seem to offer greater hope as success here would have fewer complications. The underlying gene is closer to the patient.
On that positive note. thanks to everyone! As always we are so grateful for the existence of this forum. It offers real hope for us all.
(and it even has me -under the insistence of my wife lol- using emoticons!)