scholarly journals Is Newer Safer? Adverse Events Associated with First-Line Therapies for ANCA-Associated Vasculitis and Lupus Nephritis

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 1657-1667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Hogan ◽  
Rupali Avasare ◽  
Jai Radhakrishnan
Keyword(s):  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
First Line ◽  
Anca Associated Vasculitis

scholarly journals Fondaparinux Pre-, Peri-, and/or Postpartum for the Prophylaxis/Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism (FondaPPP)

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 107602962110145
Author(s):  
Carl-Erik Dempfle ◽  
Jürgen Koscielny ◽  
Edelgard Lindhoff-Last ◽  
Birgit Linnemann ◽  
Irene Bux-Gewehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Drug Hypersensitivity ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Premature Births ◽  
First Line ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Heparin Allergy

We analyzed data for women who received fondaparinux for ≥7 days during pregnancy. The study retrospectively included women who received fondaparinux pre-, peri- and/or postpartum for ≥7 days for prophylaxis/venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment at German specialist centers (2004-2010). Data on pregnancy, VTE risk factors, anticoagulant treatment, pregnancy outcome and adverse events were extracted from medical records. 120 women (mean age 31.5 years) were included. Among 84 women with prior pregnancies, 41.0% had ≥1 abortion. Anticoagulation was indicated for prophylaxis in 92.5% cases, including 82.5% women with an elevated VTE risk (82.8% thrombophilia, 34.2% VTE history). All women received low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as first-line therapy; 3 also unfractionated heparin. Treatment changed to fondaparinux, due to heparin allergy (41.7%) or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (10.0%). Fondaparinux was generally well tolerated. Adverse events included bleeding events (n = 5), abortion (n = 2), premature births (n = 2), stillbirth (n = 1), arrested labors (n = 2), injection site erythema (n = 4) and unspecified drug hypersensitivity (n = 6). No VTE events or increased liver enzymes occurred during treatment. In this retrospective study, fondaparinux was effective and well tolerated. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01004939.

scholarly journals Immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation and management of adverse events associated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110311
Author(s):  
Chiun Hsu ◽  
Lorenza Rimassa ◽  
Hui-Chuan Sun ◽  
Arndt Vogel ◽  
Ahmed O. Kaseb
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Antiangiogenic Agents ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line

In light of positive efficacy and safety findings from the IMbrave150 trial of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, this novel combination has become the preferred first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several additional trials are ongoing that combine an immune checkpoint inhibitor with another agent such as a multiple kinase inhibitor or antiangiogenic agent. Therefore, the range of first-line treatment options for unresectable HCC is likely to increase, and healthcare providers need succinct information about the use of such combinations, including their efficacy and key aspects of their safety profiles. Here, we review efficacy and safety data on combination immunotherapies and offer guidance on monitoring and managing adverse events, especially those associated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Because of their underlying liver disease and high likelihood of portal hypertension, patients with unresectable HCC are at particular risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, and this risk may be exacerbated by treatments that include antiangiogenic agents. Healthcare providers also need to be alert to the risks of proteinuria and hypertension, colitis, hepatitis, and reactivation of hepatitis B or C virus infection. They should also be aware of the possibility of rarer but potentially life-threatening adverse events such as pneumonitis and cardiovascular events. Awareness of the risks associated with these therapies and knowledge of adverse event monitoring and management will become increasingly important as the therapeutic range broadens in unresectable HCC.

scholarly journals OP0163 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ETANERCEPT BIOSIMILAR AND ORIGINATOR USE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: DATA FROM THE GERMAN BIKER-REGISTRY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 98.1-98
Author(s):  
G. Horneff ◽  
D. Windschall ◽  
T. Hospach ◽  
S. Mrusek ◽  
M. Rühlmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
Global Assessment ◽  
Drug Exposure ◽  
Disease Onset ◽  
Injection Site Reaction ◽  
Physician Global Assessment ◽  
First Line

Background:In 2017, 2 Etanercept biosimilars became approved. Comparative studies performed in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis or psoriasis by extrapolation led to approval for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).Objectives:So far there is limited experience with Etanercept biosimilars in JIA: The large national data base of the BIKER-registry was used to describe experience with Etanercept biosimilars in clinical practice.Methods:In this retrospective analysis patients exposed to ETA were identified in the German BIKER-registry and grouped into cohorts according to initiation of treatment after 2017, use of the originator and of biosimilars. The course of JADAS10, Physician global assessment VAS 0–100-mm, Parent/patient global assessment VAS 0–100-cm, Active joint count 0-71, truncated at 10, ESR and CHAQ-DI was analyzed. Descriptive statistics was used for demographic, clinical data, drug exposure, adverse events (AEs) and events of special interest (ESI).Results:Until 31.10.2020, 2917 JIA patients were reported to have received Etanercept. Since January 1 2017, in 39 centres treatment with Etanercept was started in 439 patients (377 (85.9%) started with the originator and 62 (14.1%) started a Biosimilar). Biosimilars were prescribed n 17 centres (44%). In 12 centres (31%), Etanercept biosimilars were used first line in 62 patients. In 17 centres (44%), 63 patients switched for the originator to a biosimilar. 3 patients reswitched from the biosimilar to the originator. 4 patient switched from a biosimilar to the originator). 22 centres (56%) had not prescribed a biosimilars so far.In not a single centre, initiation of a biosimilar was more frequent than of the originator.The patients’ characteristics and disease activity parameters were widely comparanble. Patients receiving biosimilar first line were slightly older at disease onset and had a longer disease duration. Patients receiving biosimilar first line had more often rheumatoid factor (RF) negative polyarthritis while extended oligoarthritis was more frequent in the originator cohort. In the switching cohort, more patients had extended oligoarthritis and fewer had RF negative polyarthritis and ERA JIA.No difference in disease activity parameters was noted, neither at baseline, during the course of treatment nor at last observation upon treatment. A decrease of the JADAS10 indicates improvement in both groups (Figure 1). At the time of switching, 68% had JADAS minimal disease activity (MDA) and 43% were in JASDAS remission. At month 6 and 12 these numbers increased to 74%/65% and 62%/50%.In total, 66 adverse events (AE) were reported in 45 patients upon biosimilar treatment.33 patients had 1, 5 patients 2, 5 patients had 3 and 2 reported 4 events. Adverse event of special interest were hypersensitivity n=1, injection site reaction n=1, new onset of psoriasis n=1, celiac disease n=1, Crohn‘s diesease n=1, elevated transaminases n=2, depression n=1 and disease deterioration (arthritis flare) in n=21. In 20 patients, the etanercept biosimilar was discontinued.Conclusion:This analysis is the first attempt to present a large data sample on JIA patients exposed to Etanercept biosimilars. Biosimilar were used in a minority of patients and by a minority of centers although no difference in efficacy or safety was noted from our analysis. Until today, the use of the originator is by far exceeding the use of biosimilars. The prescription of a biosimilar either first line or by switching from the originator is limited to a part of centres. Differences in efficacy between first line biosimilar users and originator users could not be observed. Also, after switching, no loss of efficacy was observed.Disclosure of Interests:Gerd Horneff Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Daniel Windschall: None declared, Toni Hospach: None declared, Sonja Mrusek: None declared, Michael Rühlmann: None declared, Ariane Klein: None declared

scholarly journals AB0818 ADVERSE EVENTS UNDER B-CELL DIRECTED THERAPIES IN A LARGE SINGLE-CENTER COHORT OF PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS, ANCA-ASSOCIATED VASCULITIS AND RENAL DISEASES

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1433.1-1433
Author(s):  
J. G. Rademacher ◽  
V. Korendovych ◽  
P. Korsten
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Anca Associated Vasculitis

Background:The anti-CD20 antibody rituximab (RTX) is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). In addition, RTX is used in a wide range of autoimmune diseases. Belimumab (BEL) is an anti-BAFF antibody approved for the treatment of non-renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Europe. These agents are generally well-tolerated but severe adverse events (AEs) can occur. The frequency of and factors associated with AEs are currently unknown.Objectives:To identify adverse events with the use of B-cell directed therapies in a large population of RA, AAV, and SLE.Methods:This is a single-center retrospective cohort study using routine clinical data over a ten-year period (2010-2020). We recorded epidemiological and clinical data of patients receiving either BEL or RTX. Data included age, gender, type of disease, number and efficacy of infusions, patient-years and concomitant treatment. Patient records were screened for AEs, such as infections, anaphylaxis, occurrence of malignant disease, laboratory abnormalities and immunoglobulin (Ig) deficiency. Between group comparisons were performed.Results:Database screening yielded 445 patients treated with RTX and 23 with BEL. After exclusion of patients with incomplete data, 425 RTX and 23 BEL patients were analyzed.Our preliminary analysis of a sample of 60 of these 448 patients (184 patient-years) resulted in 43 patients (72%) with RA, 8 patients with AAV (13%), 5 patients with a renal disease, and 4 patients with mixed connective tissue disease, as well 23 SLE patients. 46 (77%) were female. In RA, a median of 13 treatments of 1000 mg were administered, corresponding to 3.37 patient-years per patient. Primary non-response occurred in 2 patients, secondary non-response in 13 patients. For AAV, a median of 8.4 treatments were given (3.3 patient-years), no treatment failure was detected. SLE patients received a median of 15 treatments.15 patients had infectious complications during treatment, 11 needed treatment. Herpes zoster infection occurred in 3 patients with RA. Three of the 8 patients with AAV had an infection requiring treatment. In SLE patients, only 2 developed infectious complications, and no Ig-deficiency occurred.Lymphopenia was the most common laboratory abnormality detected in 25 patients with RTX, 19 of whom had RA. Ig deficiency was common in RA, affecting 30% of patients. Deficiency of IgM and IgG was recognized in 5 patients each; 1 patient had low levels IgA.Neither the maintenance prednisolone dosage nor Ig deficiency were associated with risk for infection. However, lymphopenia appeared to be associated with risk for infection.Conclusion:Our preliminary data observe a 184 patient-year period. RTX and BEL were generally associated with few AEs. RA patients frequently had laboratory abnormalities (lymphopenia, Ig-deficiency) which did not necessarily translate to clinical events. Infections were more common in AAV, BEL was the best tolerated B-cell directed agent. Overall, our data are reassuring, but we suggest a more careful vigilance in AAV patients.Disclosure of Interests:Jan-Gerd Rademacher: None declared, Viktor Korendovych: None declared, PETER KORSTEN Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Sanofi Aventis, GSK, Chugai, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Consultant of: Lilly, Gilead, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, GSK, Grant/research support from: GSK

scholarly journals AB0751 SAFETY AND PERSISTENCE OF USTEKINUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS IN BIOBADASER

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1672.2-1672
Author(s):  
N. Busquets-Pérez ◽  
C. Sánchez-Piedra ◽  
P. Vela-Casasempere ◽  
M. Freire-Gonzalez ◽  
C. Bohórquez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
First Year ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Minimal Disease Activity ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Third ◽  
Minimal Disease ◽  
Second Year ◽  
Third Line

Background:Ustekinumab has been efficacy and safety for psoriatic artritis in clinical trials.Objectives:To assess effectiveness, by means of drug persistence analisys, and safety of ustekinumab in patients with psoriastic arthritis in Biobadaser.Methods:BIOBADASER is the Spanish registry of biological drugs of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology and the Spanish Medicines Agency. We identified patients aged 18 years or more with psoriatic arthritis on Ustekinumab. A descriptive analysis was performed.The persistence of ustekinumab therapy was calculated with a Kaplan-Meier curve and was compared with the persistence of anti-TNF, according to line treatment. Log Rank test was used to establish a comparison. Adverse events occurring with ustekinumab are described according to year treatment.Results:One hundred and twelve patients were on ustekinumab. Most of them were on their second or third line treatment: 53.57% more than one biological therapy (BT), 19.64% second BT, 26.79% were naïve for BT. Most of them were on 45 mg dose: 88.24%. Median duration of disease at Ustekinumab initiation was 10.1 SD 7.2 years; 69.23% had peripheral arthritis; 45.24% had obesity and 39.29% were overweight; 40,6% were on prednisone and 59.82% on DMARD. The cause of discontinuation of treatment was mainly inefficacy (82.61%) and less common an adverse event (6.52%). The probability of persistence of treatment with ustekinumab was 0.83 (95% CI 0.63-0.92) at year 1, 0.79 (0.58-0.90) at year 2 and 0.79 (0.58-0.9) at year 3 when ustekinumab was prescribed as the first line treatment. The persistence decrease when ustekinumab was prescribe as a second and third treatment: being 0.53 (0.27-0.73) the first year, 0.46 (0.22-0.67) the second year and 0.46 (0.22-0.67) as a second line treatment and 0.58 (0.44-0.70) the first year, 0.33 (0.17-0.50) the second year and 0.33 (0.17-0.50) the third year as a third line treatment.The persistence was similar to anti-TNF treatment, according to line treatment. Adverse events were mainly mild (97.83%) and occurred the first year of treatment. Most of the adverse events were classified as “infections and infestations” (36.96%).Conclusion:The persistence of ustekinumab was high, being 83% at the end of the first year on treatment and 79% the second and the third year of treatment. The persistence of ustekinumab was higher when if it was the first line treatment compared as if it was used as the second o third BT option. The persistence of Ustekinumab is similar to the persistence of anti-TNF treatments in all the analyzed treatment lines (no statistically differences were found). Adverse events occurred mainly during the first year treatment. They were mainly mild adverse events and the frequency decreased within the second and third year of treatment.References:[1]Treatment with ustekinumab in a Spanish cohort of patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in daily clinical practice.Almirall M, Rodriguez J, Mateo L, Carrascosa JM, Notario J, Gallardo F. Clin Rheumatol. 2017 Feb;36(2):439-443;[2]Minimal disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with ustekinumab: results from a 24-week real-world study.Napolitano M, Costa L, Caso F, Megna M, Scarpa R, Balato N, Ayala F, Balato A. J Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Oct;24(7):381-384;[3]Minimal Disease Activity and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Real-World Evidence Study With Ustekinumab.Queiro R, Brandy A, Rosado MC, Lorenzo A, Coto P, Carriles C, Alperi M, Ballina J. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2018 Jun 28;[4]An analysis of Drug Survival, Effectiveness, and Safety in Moderate to Severe Psoriasis Treated With Ustekinumab: An Observational Study of 69 Patients in Routine Clinical Practice.Salgüero Fernández I, Gil MH, Sanz MS, Gullón GR;Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Axitinib plus Immuncheckpoint-Inhibitor: evidenz- und expertenbasierte Konsensusempfehlungen für die Behandlungsoptimierung und das Management von therapieassoziierten Nebenwirkungen

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 180-189
Author(s):  
Viktor Grünwald ◽  
Martin H. Voss ◽  
Brain I. Rini ◽  
Thomas Powles ◽  
Laurence Albiges ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
First Line

Die kürzlich erfolgte Zulassung der Kombinationstherapien von Axitinib mit den Immuncheckpoint-Inhibitoren (ICI) Pembrolizumab oder Avelumab zur First-Line-Therapie des fortgeschrittenen Nierenzellkarzinoms macht Handlungsempfehlungen zur Differenzierung zwischen immunbezogenen Nebenwirkungen (adverse events, AEs), die durch ICI verursacht werden, und Axitinib-bezogenen AEs erforderlich, um die Therapie mit Axitinib-ICI-Kombinationen zu optimieren. Die hier vorgestellten Empfehlungen basieren auf einer systematischen kritischen Überprüfung der veröffentlichten Evidenzlage und einer Diskussion unter Experten auf diesem Gebiet sowie einer Umfrage mit dem Ziel, einen Expertenkonsens über spezifische Maßnahmen für das Therapiemanagement mit den Kombinationstherapien von Axitinib/Avelumab und Axitinib/Pembrolizumab zu erhalten. Die Experten identifizierten AE-Bereiche, bei denen ein spezielles Management während der Behandlung mit Axitinib-ICI-Kombinationstherapien notwendig ist und die von den aktuellen Empfehlungen nicht abgedeckt werden. Nebenwirkungen, die ein solches spezialisiertes Management erfordern, sind Diarrhoe, Lebertoxizität, Fatigue und kardiovaskuläre AEs. Die Triage zwischen immunsuppressiven und supportiven Maßnahmen ist ein zentrales Element des Therapiemanagements. Dieser neuartige Therapieansatz erfordert ein klinisches Monitoring und Erfahrungen mit beiden Wirkstoffklassen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit liegt der Schwerpunkt auf AEs, die Überschneidungen zwischen der Axitinib- und der ICI-Therapie aufweisen. Unsere Empfehlungen beziehen sich auf das Management von AEs, die unter der Behandlung mit Axitinib-ICI-Kombinationen auftreten, und haben zum Ziel, die Sicherheit dieser Therapien zu verbessern.

191 Association of immune related adverse events with the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A205-A206
Author(s):  
Vasilii Bushunow ◽  
Leonard Appleman ◽  
Roby Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Kaplan Meier

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are first-line therapy for tumors including metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Use of ICI is complicated by diverse immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can add significant morbidity but are also associated with improved efficacy of therapy.1 2 Risk factors for development of irAE are still poorly understood. We hypothesized that patients with mRCC treated with ICI as first-line therapy have higher rates of developing irAE’s than patients previously treated with other therapies.MethodsWe conducted a single-institution, retrospective medical record review of patients with mRCC treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors from March 2011 through April 15, 2020. We identified therapy duration, and presence, severity, and treatment of adverse events. We defined overall survival as time elapsed from date of diagnosis until death or until completion of study. We classified severity of adverse events according to CTCAE guidelines. Statistical methods included univariate Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, and Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for subgroups.ResultsA total of 64 unique charts were reviewed. 18 patients (28%) of patients were treated with ICI as first-line therapy. 28 patients (44%) experienced immune-related adverse events with a total of 40 irAE’s identified. Most irAE were grade I-II (78%), with 7 (17%) grade III and 1 (2.4%) grade IV irAE’s. Most common sites were skin (29%), thyroid (20%) and gastrointestinal (15%). Patients with irAE had increased survival compared to those who did not have irAE (median survival not reached, vs 139 weeks, p=0.0004) (figure 1). This finding remained after excluding patients who had only experienced dermatologic irAE (median survival not reached in non-derm irAE subgroup, vs 144 weeks for dermatologic or no irAE, p=0.01) (figure 2). Patients treated with ICI as first line therapy had greater rates of developing irAE (72%) than those who had prior therapies (32%) (OR 5.4; p = 0.006). There was no association between histology type and rate of irAE.Abstract 191 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier survival plot of OS between patients with any irAE and those without any irAEAbstract 191 Figure 2Kaplan-Meier survival plot of OS between patients with non-dermatologic irAE and those without any irAE or only dermatologic irAEConclusionsThe development of irAE’s in patients with mRCC treated with ICI is associated with longer survival. This study joins the growing body of evidence showing that presence of irAE’s is associated with increased treatment efficacy. Use of ICI as first-line therapy is associated with higher risk of irAE. Given growing use of ICI as first-line therapy, further study to predict onset and severity of irAE’s is required.AcknowledgementsHong Wang, PhD, for statistical support.Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Approval number STUDY19100386.ReferencesElias R, Yan N, Singla N, Levonyack N, Formella J, Christie A, et al. Immune-related adverse events are associated with improved outcomes in ICI-treated renal cell carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(7):S645.Verzoni E, Cartenì G, Cortesi E, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of nivolumab in previously-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and association between immune-related adverse events and survival: the Italian expanded access program. J Immunother Cancer 2019;7(1):99.

scholarly journals Randomised trial of first-line bronchial artery embolisation for non-severe haemoptysis of mild abundance

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000949
Author(s):  
Muriel Fartoukh ◽  
Alexandre Demoule ◽  
Olivier Sanchez ◽  
Sophie Tuffet ◽  
Emmanuel Bergot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Bronchial Artery ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Comorbid Condition ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Bronchial Artery Embolisation

BackgroundWhereas first-line bronchial artery embolisation (BAE) is considered standard of care for the management of severe haemoptysis, it is unknown whether this approach is warranted for non-severe haemoptysis.Research questionTo assess the efficacy on bleeding control and the safety of first-line BAE in non-severe haemoptysis of mild abundance.Study design and methodsThis multicentre, randomised controlled open-label trial enrolled adult patients without major comorbid condition and having mild haemoptysis (onset <72 hours, 100–200 mL estimated bleeding amount), related to a systemic arterial mechanism. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to BAE associated with medical therapy or to medical therapy alone.ResultsBleeding recurrence at day 30 after randomisation (primary outcome) occurred in 4 (11.8%) of 34 patients in the BAE strategy and 17 (44.7%) of 38 patients in the medical strategy (difference −33%; 95% CI −13.8% to −52.1%, p=0.002). The 90-day bleeding recurrence-free survival rates were 91.2% (95% CI 75.1% to 97.1%) and 60.2% (95% CI 42.9% to 73.8%), respectively (HR=0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.67, p=0.01). No death occurred during follow-up and no bleeding recurrence needed surgery.Four adverse events (one major with systemic emboli) occurred during hospitalisation, all in the BAE strategy (11.8% vs 0%; difference 11.8%, 95% CI 0.9 to 22.6, p=0.045); all eventually resolved.ConclusionIn non-severe haemoptysis of mild abundance, BAE associated with medical therapy had a superior efficacy for preventing bleeding recurrences at 30 and 90 days, as compared with medical therapy alone. However, it was associated with a higher rate of adverse events.Trial registration numberNCT01278199

MO661COMPARISON OF CLINICAL EFFICACY OF CENTRIFUGAL-MEMBRANOUS DOUBLE FILTRATION PLASMAPHERESIS AND MEMBRANOUS DOUBLE FILTRATION PLASMAPHERESIS ON SEVERE LUPUS NEPHRITIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianhua Dong ◽  
Li Huang ◽  
Chuan Li ◽  
Ling Kong ◽  
Lixuan Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Blood Cell ◽  
Serum Creatinine ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Vascular Access ◽  
Double Filtration Plasmapheresis ◽  
Severe Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Double Filtration

Abstract Background and Aims The Study delves into the clinical efficacy and advantages of centrifugal double filtration plasmapheresis on severe lupus nephritis (LN) by comparing it with membranous double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP). Method A retrospective analysis was performed on 56 patients who were diagnosed with severe LN and had received DFPP treatment from May 2016 and January 2020. Of them, 38 were given centrifugal DFPP and had their plasma centrifuged in a blood cell separator, and 18 were given membranous DFPP and had their plasma centrifuged in an MPS07 plasma separator. An EC20W plasma component separator was used as the secondary filter to reprocess the separated plasma of all of them. The two DFPPs were compared for differences in clinical efficacy, vascular access, dosage of anticoagulant, treatment cost and adverse events in patients with severe LN. Results Of the 56 severe LN patients (including 43 females and 13 males), the median of age of onset was 29 years old, the SLEDAI (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) was 18.6±6.0 points and the serum creatinine was 402(294,553) umol/L, and all patients had acute kidney injury and 51 of them (91.1%) required renal replacement therapy (RRT). A total of 142 DFPPs were performed, including 97 centrifugal DFPPs and 45 membranous DFPPs. After treatment and at Month 3 of follow-up visit, patients in both the centrifugal DFPP group and the membranous DFPP group had ANA, AdsDNA titer, quantitative urinary protein, urinary red blood cell count and serum creatinine significantly dropped and hemoglobin significantly increased over those before treatment, the differences in which between the two groups, however, were not statistically significant. The centrifugal DFPP group had a more significant drop in complements C3 and C4 after treatment. Comparison of the data before and after a single DFPP treatment showed that the membranous DFPP group had a more significantly longer prothrombin time, but there were no differences in partial prothrombin time, fibrinogen and platelet change between the two groups. At Month 3 of follow-up visit, 31 of the 51 RRT patients (60.8%) (including 34 given centrifugal DFPP and 17 given membranous DFPP) were released from dialysis, including 23 given centrifugal DFPP and 8 given membranous DFPP. In the membranous DFPP group, all patients had the vascular access built via the central venous catheter, while in the centrifugal DFPP group, 6 patients (15.8%) had the vascular access built by puncturing into the artery or vein. The dosage of the anticoagulant, the low molecular weight heparin, to the centrifugal DFPP group was significantly lower than that to the membranous DFPP group (1174±243 vs 4106±399IU, P&lt;0.001), and in the centrifugal DFPP group, 29 patients (76.3%) were given 4% citric acid alone for anti-coagulation. No blood coagulation occurred. In terms of treatment consumables, the membranous DFPP group had a significantly higher cost than the centrifugal DFPP group (RMB4340.2±237.0 vs 5677.0±0.0, P&lt;0.001). Two patients (4.4%) in the membranous DFPP group developed skin ectasis, epistaxis or aggravated alveolar hemorrhage after treatment, and four patients (4.1%) in the centrifugal DFPP group developed perioral numbness, numbness in distal extremities or tetany during treatment, which was alleviated after calcium supplementation. Conclusion Centrifugal DFPP differed little from membranous DFPP in clinical efficacy in severe LN patients, but had lower anti-coagulation requirements, cost less on treatment consumables, and caused no severe adverse events, so it can be used as an important means to treat severe LN.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document