The Efficacy and Safety of Different Dosages of Rituximab for Adults with Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Rituximab has been frequently used as a second-line treatment for patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). The optimal dose and course of rituximab are uncertain. Methods. A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials reporting the use of low-dose (100 mg) or standard-dose (375 mg/m2) rituximab in ITP treatment was conducted. Meta-analyses were performed on CRR (complete response rate), ORR (overall response rate), PRR (partial response rate), SRR (sustained response rate), infection rate, SB (significant bleeding) rate, and SAE (serious adverse event) rate. Results. A total of 12 studies were included, comprising 869 patients. Compared to the control group, rituximab treatment resulted in an obvious increase in CRR ( P < 0.00001 ), ORR ( P < 0.0001 ), and SRR at month 6 and 12 ( P = 0.0007 , P = 0.0003 ), without increasing the infection rate ( P = 0.12 ) and SAE rate ( P = 0.11 ). No significant differences in CRR (RR 1.61 vs. 1.42, P = 0.45 ), ORR (RR 1.26 vs. 1.49, P = 0.28 ), PRR (RR 1.25 vs. 1.00, P = 0.11 ), SRR at month 12 (RR 2.00 vs. RR 1.64, P = 0.54 ), infection rate (RR 0.85 vs. 1.46, P = 0.36 ), and SB rate (RR 0.14 vs. 1.19, P = 0.17 ) were found in subgroups of low dose and standard dose. Conclusion. Rituximab was effective and safe for adult patients with ITP. A low-dose rituximab regimen might be an effective alternative to the standard-dose regimen in ITP, as it showed similar CRR, ORR, and SRR at month 12 and was relatively safer with a lower cost.

In silico dynamics of COVID-19 phenotypes for optimizing clinical management

Understanding the underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 progression and the impact of various pharmaceutical interventions is crucial for the clinical management of the disease. We developed a comprehensive mathematical framework based on the known mechanisms of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, incorporating the renin−angiotensin system and ACE2, which the virus exploits for cellular entry, key elements of the innate and adaptive immune responses, the role of inflammatory cytokines, and the coagulation cascade for thrombus formation. The model predicts the evolution of viral load, immune cells, cytokines, thrombosis, and oxygen saturation based on patient baseline condition and the presence of comorbidities. Model predictions were validated with clinical data from healthy people and COVID-19 patients, and the results were used to gain insight into identified risk factors of disease progression including older age; comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension; and dysregulated immune response. We then simulated treatment with various drug classes to identify optimal therapeutic protocols. We found that the outcome of any treatment depends on the sustained response rate of activated CD8+ T cells and sufficient control of the innate immune response. Furthermore, the best treatment—or combination of treatments—depends on the preinfection health status of the patient. Our mathematical framework provides important insight into SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and could be used as the basis for personalized, optimal management of COVID-19.

In silico dynamics of COVID-19 phenotypes for optimizing clinical management

Understanding the underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 progression and the impact of various pharmaceutical interventions is crucial for the clinical management of the disease. We developed a comprehensive mathematical framework based on the known mechanisms of the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection, incorporating the renin-angiotensin system and ACE2, which the virus exploits for cellular entry, key elements of the innate and adaptive immune responses, the role of inflammatory cytokines and the coagulation cascade for thrombus formation. The model predicts the evolution of viral load, immune cells, cytokines, thrombosis, and oxygen saturation based on patient baseline condition and the presence of co-morbidities. Model predictions were validated with clinical data from healthy people and COVID-19 patients, and the results were used to gain insight into identified risk factors of disease progression including older age, co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, and dysregulated immune response 1,2. We then simulated treatment with various drug classes to identify optimal therapeutic protocols. We found that the outcome of any treatment depends on the sustained response rate of activated CD8+ T cells and sufficient control of the innate immune response. Furthermore, the best treatment –or combination of treatments – depends on the pre-infection health status of the patient. Our mathematical framework provides important insight into SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and could be used as the basis for personalized, optimal management of COVID-19.

High Dose Dexamethasone Vs. Conventional Dose Prednisolone for Adults with Immune Thrombocytopenia: a Prospective Multicenter Phase III Trial.

Abstract 3687 Background: Prednisolone at a dose of 1 mg/kg/day (PRD) for 2 to 4 weeks is administered as front-line therapy to most adult patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who need to be treated. Recent results from 2 large single arm studies suggest high dose dexamethasone (DEX) as first-line treatment may produce a high sustained response rate. Therefore, we conducted prospective randomized trial comparing DEX with PRD as initial treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed ITP. Methods: We did a randomized multicentre trial based on a 1:1 design. We enrolled treatment-naïve patients, 16 years or older, with a diagnosis of ITP according to the practice guidelines of the American Society of Hematology and a platelet count of 30×109/L or less. Patients with ITP were randomly assigned to receive either DEX 40 mg/day on day 1–4 (If the platelet count dropped below 3×109/L within the first six months, another four-day course of DEX was given) or PRD 1mg/kg/day for 4 weeks. The primary object of this study was the sustained response (platelet count>30×109/L after 6 months) rate. Second objectives are response rate at 4 weeks, predictors of steroid response, and toxicity. This study is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00451594. Results: From September 2005 to December 2009, 151 adults with ITP were randomly assigned (76 patients in the DEX arm, 75 patients in the PRD arm). Overall demographics were balanced between arms; Median age 44 years old (DEX:PRD 44 years old:44 years old); 69.5% female (DEX:PRD 73.7%:65.3%); median initial platelet count 17×109/L (DEX:PRD 16×109/L:17×109/L). Of 151 enrolled patients, 117 patients (57 patients in the DEX arm, 60 patients in the PRD arm) were evaluable in terms of sustained response. Sustained response rate by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol were 25.0% and 33.3% in the DEX arm, 36.0% and 45.0% in the PRD arm, respectively (p=0.33 by ITT). Eight patients in the DEX arm and 17 patients in the PRD arm had a sustained platelet counts more than100×109/L. Fifteen patients had a sustained response after a single course of DEX and 6 patients among them required no further treatment during two to four year follow up. Median time to relapse in patients who had a sustained response was 1320 days and 1140 days, respectively. The response rate at day 28 was 68.2% in the DEX arm and 81.2% in the PRD arm. Pre-treatment platelet count was higher in patients who achieved sustained response (responder vs. non-responder: 17.1±7.8×109/L vs. 15.9±8.9×109/L). Eleven patients in the DEX arm and 8 patients in the PRD arm received splenectomy. Both treatments were well tolerated. Three patients represented side effects that were severe enough to discontinue the treatment in the PRD arm, including pneumonia (1), hyperglycemia (1), and myalgia (1). Six patients receiving DEX and 5 patients receiving PRD had G3 or more hyperglycemia. Conclusion: One or two courses of DEX were not more effective than PRD in adults with ITP. However, 19.7% of adult ITP had a sustained response with a single course of DEX. Initial treatment with DEX could be useful for identifying patients who may not require prolonged steroid treatment. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Evolution of Interferon-Based Therapy for Chronic Hepatitis C

Since 1986, interferon-alfa (IFN-) monotherapy has been administered for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). However, sustained response rate is only about 8% to 9%. Subsequent introduction of ribavirin in combination with IFN- was a major breakthrough in the treatment of CHC. Sustained virological responses (SVRs) rate is about 30% in hepatitis C virus genotype 1 (HCV-1) patients, and is about 65% in HCV-2 or -3 patients. After 2000, pegylated interferon (PegIFN) much improved the rates of SVR. Presently, PegIFN--ribavirin combination therapy has been current standard of care for patients infected with HCV. In patients with HCV-1, treatment for 48 weeks is optimal, but 24 weeks of treatment is sufficient in HCV-2 or -3 infected patients. Clinical factors have been identified as predictors for the efficacy of the IFN-based therapy. The baseline factor most strongly predictive of an SVR is the presence of HCV-2 or -3 infections. Rapid virological response (RVR) is the single best predictor of an SVR to PegIFN-ribavirin therapy. If patients can't achieve a RVR but achieve a complete early virological response (cEVR), treatment with current standard of care can provide more than 90% SVR rate. HCV-1 patients who do not achieve an EVR should discontinue the therapy. Recent advances of protease inhibitor may contribute the development of a novel triple combination therapy.

Antidepressant medicationsv.cognitive therapy in people with depression with or without personality disorder

BackgroundThere is conflicting evidence about comorbid personality pathology in depression treatments.AimsTo test the effects of antidepressant drugs and cognitive therapy in people with depression distinguished by the presence or absence of personality disorder.MethodRandom assignment of 180 out-patients with depression to 16 weeks of antidepressant medication or cognitive therapy. Random assignment of medication responders to continued medication or placebo, and comparison with cognitive therapy responders over a 12-month period.ResultsPersonality disorder status led to differential response at 16 weeks; 66%v.44% (antidepressantsv.cognitive therapy respectively) for people with personality disorder, and 49%v.70% (antidepressantsv.cognitive therapy respectively) for people without personality disorder. For people with personality disorder, sustained response rates over the 12-month follow-up were nearly identical (38%) in the prior cognitive therapy and continuation-medication treatment arms. People with personality disorder withdrawn from medication evidenced the lowest sustained response rate (6%). Despite the poor response of people with personality disorder to cognitive therapy, nearly all those who did respond sustained their response.ConclusionsComorbid personality disorder was associated with differential initial response rates and sustained response rates for two well-validated treatments for depression.