Daratumumab,Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma: Three-year Follow-up of CASTOR

BackgroundIn the phase III CASTOR study in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) demonstrated significant clinical benefit versus Vd alone. Outcomes after 40.0 months of median follow-up are discussed.Patients and MethodsEligible patients had received ≥ 1 line of treatment and were administered bortezomib (1.3 mg/m²) and dexamethasone (20 mg) for 8 cycles with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg) until disease progression.ResultsOf 498 patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (D-Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), 47% had 1 prior line of treatment (1PL; D-Vd, n = 122; Vd, n = 113). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd in the ITT population (16.7 vs. 7.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.40; P < .0001) and the 1PL subgroup (27.0 vs. 7.9 months; HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.15-0.32; P < .0001). In lenalidomide-refractory patients, the median PFS was 7.8 versus 4.9 months (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68; P = .0002) for D-Vd (n = 60) versus Vd (n = 81). Minimal residual disease (MRD)–negativity rates (10⁻⁵) were greater with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: 14% vs. 2%; 1PL: 20% vs. 3%; both P < .0001). PFS2 was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.61; 1PL: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51; P < .0001). No new safety concerns were observed.ConclusionAfter 3 years, D-Vd maintained significant benefits in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with a consistent safety profile. D-Vd provided the greatest benefit at first relapse and increased MRD-negativity rates.     

自拟紫癜汤治疗过敏性紫癜的临床疗效分析

目的:探究自拟紫癜汤治疗过敏性紫癜的临床疗效。方法:此选取过敏性紫癜患者68例,研究时间为2017年12月-2018年12月,根据治疗方式不同进行分组,分别为对照组与实验组,每组各34例。给予对照组西医治疗,给予实验组自拟紫癜汤治疗。对比治疗效果、症状消失时间、不良反应与免疫学指标,进行统计学分析。结果:观察组有效率优于对照组,P<0.05,差异形成了统计学意义。观察组皮肤紫癜、腹痛、黑便、大便隐血消失时间均优于对照组患者,P<0.05,差异形成了统计学意义。观察组的不良反应优于对照组患者,P<0.05,差异有统计学意义。观察组的治疗后免疫球蛋白A(IgA)、免疫球蛋白M(IgM)水平优于对照组患者,P<0.05,差异形成了统计学意义。结论:自拟紫癜汤治疗过敏性紫癜患者,能有效提高治疗有效率,改善临床症状,缩短治疗时间,安全性高,改善免疫学指标,具有显著的治疗效果。     

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of home treatment with the recombinant human C1-inhibitor in hereditary angioedema resulting from C1-inhibitor deficiency

ObjectiveConestat alpha, a C1-inhibitor produced by recombinant technology (rhC1-INH) is an acute treatment for edematous attacks occurring in hereditary angioedema (HAE) with C1-inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE). Our study evaluated the efficacy and safety of rhC1-INH administered during HAE attacks, and for short-term prophylaxis (STP).Materials & methodOur prospective study analyzed the course of 544 HAE attacks experienced by the 21 C1-INH-HAE patients treated, as well as the outcome of 97 instances of STP implemented with rhC1-INH. Using a purpose-designed questionnaire, the patients recorded relevant, treatment-related information.ResultsTime to the administration of rhC1-INH was 90.0 min (median) after the onset of HAE attacks. The symptoms started to improve as early as 60 min after the injection of rhC1-INH, and the attack resolved 730.0 min after treatment. The interval between the onset of the HAE attack and the administration of rhC1-INH correlated with time until the onset of improvement (R = 0.2053 p < 0.0001), and with time to the complete resolution of symptoms (R = 0.2805, p < 0.0001). Nine patients received STP with rhC1-INH in 97 instances. STP successfully prevented the HAE attack within 72 h of the event on 93/97 occasions. No local and serious systemic adverse events/effects were observed.ConclusionsTreatment with rhC1-INH is effective and safe both for acute management, and for STP. Following the onset of an HAE attack, early administration of rhC1-INH may reduce time to the improvement and to the complete resolution of symptoms. Repeated administration of rhC1-INH does not impair its efficacy.     

Early Access Program Results From Turkey and a Literature Review on Daratumumab Monotherapy Among Heavily Pretreated Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Myeloma

BackgroundIn countries where frontline drug approval is limited to first-generation proteasome inhibitors or immunomodulatory drugs, relapses have been both more frequent and less durable. We investigated real world data on the efficacy and safety of daratumumab monotherapy among patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) from Turkey using a prospective early access program.Patients and MethodsA total of 42 patients with RRMM after a minimum of 3 previous lines of proteasome inhibitor/immunomodulatory drug-based treatments were included from 25 centers across Turkey. Daratumumab monotherapy was administered intravenously at a dose of 16 mg/kg weekly (cycles 1-2), on alternate weeks (cycles 3-6), and monthly thereafter.ResultsThe median daratumumab monotherapy duration was 5.5 months (range, 0.2-28.7 months). The overall response rate was 45.2%, including 14 (33.3%) partial responses, 4 (9.5%) very good partial responses, and 1 (2.4%) complete response. The median duration of response was 4.9 months. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 (95% confidence interval, 2.6-8.4 months) with 12- and 18-month PFS rates of 35.7% and 31.0%, respectively. The median overall survival was not reached; the 12- and 18-month overall survival rates were 64.3% and 59.5%, respectively. The depth of response had a significant effect on PFS (log-rank test, P = .026). Overall, of the 76 adverse events reported, 33 (43.4%) were grade ≥ 3; only 4 (9.52%) were grade 3 infusion-related reactions. No infusion-related reactions or adverse events led to treatment discontinuation.ConclusionThe present findings from our daratumumab early access program have confirmed the efficacy and safety profile of daratumumab monotherapy in heavily pretreated Turkish patients with RRMM.     

Immunogenicity and safety of a tetravalent dengue vaccine and a bivalent HPV vaccine given concomitantly or sequentially in girls aged 9 to 14 years in Mexico

Dengue is endemic in several regions, and the global incidence is increasing. The recombinant, live, attenuated, tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV) is recommended for dengue seropositive individuals ≥ 9 years. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is recommended for girls aged 9–14 years to prevent HPV infection-related cancers. This study assessed the immunogenicity and safety of a bivalent HPV (types 16 and 18) vaccine and CYD-TDV when co-administered concomitantly or sequentially.This was a Phase IIIb, randomized, open-label, multicenter study in girls aged 9–14 years in Mexico (NCT02979535). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive three doses of CYD-TDV 6 months apart and two doses of bivalent HPV vaccine either concomitantly with, or 1 month before (sequentially), the first 2 CYD-TDV doses. Antibody levels were measured at baseline and 28-days after each vaccine dose for all participants, using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for HPV-16 and HPV-18 antibodies, and a plaque reduction neutralization test for the four dengue serotypes; results are reported only for participants who were seropositive at baseline. Safety was assessed for all randomized participants throughout the study.Of the randomized participants, 305/478 (63.8%) were seropositive for dengue at baseline: 154 in the concomitant group and 151 in the sequential group. After the last HPV vaccine dose, the antibody titers for HPV were comparable in seropositive participants between treatment groups, with between group titer ratios of 0.966 for HPV-16 and 0.999 for HPV-18. After dose 3 of CYD-TDV, antibody titers were comparable for the concomitant and sequential groups across all serotypes, with between-group ratios close to 1 (serotype 1: 0.977; serotype 2: 0.911; serotype 3: 0.921; serotype 4: 0.931).CYD-TDV and a bivalent HPV vaccine administered concomitantly or sequentially in dengue seropositive girls aged 9–14 years elicited comparable immune responses with similar safety profiles.     

Ballistic Resistance Training: Feasibility,Safety, and Effectiveness for Improving Mobility in Adults With Neurologic Conditions: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesTo determine whether ballistic resistance training is feasible, safe, and effective in improving muscle strength, power generation, and mobility in adults with neurologic conditions.Data SourcesNine electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2019 in addition to the reference lists of included articles.Study SelectionArticles were independently screened by 2 authors and were included if they were full-text; English-language articles published in a peer-reviewed journal; investigated ballistic resistance training for adults with a neurologic condition; and reported on feasibility, safety, strength, power, or mobility.Data ExtractionTwo authors independently extracted data. Study quality was assessed using the McMaster critical review form and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale.Data SynthesisThe search identified 1540 articles, with 13 articles describing 9 studies meeting the criteria for inclusion. Five studies were randomized controlled trials and 4 were cohort studies. Ballistic resistance training was feasible and safe with only 1 intervention-related adverse event reported. Findings indicated improvements in strength for hip abduction, leg press, knee flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion, but not for hip flexion, hip extension, knee extension, or ankle plantarflexion. Muscle power generation improved for hip flexion, hip abduction, leg press, knee extension, and knee flexion, but not for ankle plantarflexion. Treatment effect was positive for self-selected walking speed, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-1.38) from 3 studies. However, fastest comfortable walking speed results were inconclusive with a SMD from 4 studies of 0.45 (95% CI, –0.01 to 0.91).ConclusionsBallistic training is safe and feasible for people with a neurologic condition. The effects on muscle strength, power generation, and mobility were found to be positive but not conclusive.     

Transnasal endoscopic skull base surgery in the COVID-19 era: Recommendations for increasing the safety of the method

Transnasal endoscopic skull base surgery (eSBS) has been adopted in recent years, in great part to replace the extended procedures required by external approaches. Though sometimes perceived as “minimally invasive”, eSBS still necessitates extensive manipulations within the nose/paranasal sinuses. Furthermore, exposure of susceptible cerebral structures to light and heat emanated by the telescope should be considered to comprehensively evaluate the safety of the method. While the number of studies specifically targeting eSBS safety still remains scarce, the problem has recently expanded with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which also has implications for the safety of the surgical personnel.It must be stressed that eSBS may directly expose the surgeon to potentially high volumes of virus-contaminated aerosol. Thus, the anxiety of both the patient and the surgeon must be taken into account. Consequently, safety requirements must follow the highest standards. This paper summarizes current knowledge on SARS-CoV-2 biology and the peculiarities of human immunology in respect of the host-virus relationship, taking into account the latest information concerning the SARS-CoV-2 worrisome affinity for the nervous system. Based on this information, a workflow proposal is offered for consideration. This could be useful not only for the duration of the pandemic, but also during the unpredictable timeline involving our coexistence with the virus. Recommendations include technical modifications to the operating theatre, personal protective equipment, standards of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection, prophylactic pretreatment with interferon, anti-IL6 treatment and, last but not least, psychological support for the patient.     

A phase III,observer-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy,safety, and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine in healthy adults aged 18–59 years: An interim analysis in Indonesia

BackgroundThe WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11th, 2020. This serious outbreak and the precipitously increasing numbers of deaths worldwide necessitated the urgent need to develop an effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. The development of COVID-19 vaccines has moved quickly. In this study, we assessed the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of an inactivated (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and its lot-to-lot consistency. A total of 1620 healthy adults aged 18–59 years were randomly assigned to receive 2 injections of the trial vaccine or placebo on a day 0 and 14 schedule. This article was based on an interim report completed within 3 months following the last dose of study vaccine. The interim analysis includes safety and immunogenicity data for 540 participants in the immunogenicity subset and an efficacy analysis of the 1620 subjects. For the safety evaluation, solicited and unsolicited adverse events were collected after the first and second vaccination within 14 and 28 days, respectively. Blood samples were collected for an antibody assay before and 14 days following the second dose.ResultsMost of the adverse reactions were in the solicited category and were mild in severity. Pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom. Antibody IgG titer determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 97.48% for the seroconversion rate. Using a neutralization assay, the seroconversion rate was 87.15%. The efficacy in preventing symptomatic confirmed cases of COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after the second dose of vaccine using an incidence rate was 65.30%.ConclusionsFrom the 3-month interim analysis, the vaccine exhibited a 65.30% efficacy at preventing COVID-19 illness with favorable safety and immunogenicity profiles.     

A preliminary report of a randomized controlled phase 2 trial of the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine

BackgroundVaccines are urgently needed to prevent the global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of vaccine candidate mRNA-1273, encoding the prefusion-stabilized spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.MethodsThis phase 2, randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 8 sites in the USA, in healthy adults aged ≥18 years with no known history or risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and had not previously received an investigational CoV vaccine or treatment. Participants were stratified into two age cohorts (≥18-<55 and ≥55) and were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either 50 or 100 µg of mRNA-1273, or placebo administered as two intramuscular injections 28 days apart. The primary outcomes were safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity assessed by anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike binding antibody level (bAb). Secondary outcome was immunogenicity assessed by SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody (nAb) response.ResultsBetween 29 May and 8 July 2020, 600 participants were randomized, 300 per age cohort. The most common solicited adverse reactions were pain at injection site, headache, and fatigue following each vaccination in both age cohorts. One serious adverse event deemed unrelated by the site investigator occurred 33 days post-vaccination one. mRNA-1273 induced bAb and nAb by 28 days post-vaccination one that were higher at the 100 µg dose relative to the 50 µg dose; this difference was less apparent post-vaccination two. Binding antibodies and nAb increased substantially by 14 days following the second vaccination (day 43) to levels exceeding those of convalescent sera and remained elevated through day 57.ConclusionsVaccination with mRNA-1273 resulted in significant immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in participants 18 years and older, with an acceptable safety profile, confirming the safety and immunogenicity of 50 and 100 µg mRNA-1273 given as a 2 dose-regimen.ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04405076.