Efficacy of bendamustine and rituximab in unfit patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Indirect comparison with ibrutinib in a real-world setting. A GIMEMA-ERIC and US study

Limited information is available on the efficacy of front-line bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with reduced renal function or coexisting conditions. We therefore analyzed a cohort of real-world patients and performed a matched adjusted indirect comparison with a cohort of patients treated with ibrutinib. One hundred and fifty-seven patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 6 were treated with BR. The median age was 72 years; 69% of patients had ≥2 comorbidities and the median CrCl was 59.8 mL/min. 17.6% of patients carried TP53 disruption. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 45 months; TP53 disruption was associated with a shorter PFS (P = 0.05). The overall survival (OS) at 12, 24, and 36 months was 96.2%, 90.1%, and 79.5%, respectively. TP53 disruption was associated with an increased risk of death (P = 0.01). Data on 162 patients ≥65 years treated with ibrutinib were analyzed and compared with 165 patients ≥65 years treated with BR. Factors predicting for a longer PFS at multivariable analysis in the total patient population treated with BR and ibrutinib were age (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P < 0.01) and treatment with ibrutinib (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.93, P = 0.03). In a post hoc analysis of patients in advanced stage, a significant PFS advantage was observed in patient who had received ibrutinib (P = 0.03), who showed a trend for OS advantage (P = 0.08). We arrived at the following conclusions: (a) BR is a relatively effective first-line regimen in a real-world population of unfit patients without TP53 disruption, (b) ibrutinib provided longer disease control than BR in patients with advanced disease stage

Review of nanomaterials in dentistry: interactions with the oral microenvironment, clinical applications, hazards, and benefits.

Interest in the use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) as either nanomedicines or dental materials/devices in clinical dentistry is growing. This review aims to detail the ultrafine structure, chemical composition, and reactivity of dental tissues in the context of interactions with ENMs, including the saliva, pellicle layer, and oral biofilm; then describes the applications of ENMs in dentistry in context with beneficial clinical outcomes versus potential risks. The flow rate and quality of saliva are likely to influence the behavior of ENMs in the oral cavity, but how the protein corona formed on the ENMs will alter bioavailability, or interact with the structure and proteins of the pellicle layer, as well as microbes in the biofilm, remains unclear. The tooth enamel is a dense crystalline structure that is likely to act as a barrier to ENM penetration, but underlying dentinal tubules are not. Consequently, ENMs may be used to strengthen dentine or regenerate pulp tissue. ENMs have dental applications as antibacterials for infection control, as nanofillers to improve the mechanical and bioactive properties of restoration materials, and as novel coatings on dental implants. Dentifrices and some related personal care products are already available for oral health applications. Overall, the clinical benefits generally outweigh the hazards of using ENMs in the oral cavity, and the latter should not prevent the responsible innovation of nanotechnology in dentistry. However, the clinical safety regulations for dental materials have not been specifically updated for ENMs, and some guidance on occupational health for practitioners is also needed. Knowledge gaps for future research include the formation of protein corona in the oral cavity, ENM diffusion through clinically relevant biofilms, and mechanistic investigations on how ENMs strengthen the tooth structure

A retrospective comparison of venetoclax alone or in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody in R/R CLL

Venetoclax (VEN) is approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as monotherapy (VENmono) or in combination with rituximab. Whether VEN plus anti-CD20 (VENcombo) is superior to VENmono is unknown. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis comparing 321 CLL patients treated with VENmono vs VENcombo across the United States and the United Kingdom. We examined demographics, baseline characteristics, dosing, adverse events, response rates, and outcomes. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated by Kaplan-Meier method, in patients treated with VENmono vs VENcombo. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed with COX regression. Three hundred twenty-one CLL patients were included (3 median prior treatments, 78% prior ibrutinib). The overall response rates (ORRs) were similar (VENmono, 81% ORR, 34% complete remission [CR] vs VENcombo, 84% ORR, 32% CR). With a median follow-up of 13.4 months, no differences in PFS and OS were observed between the groups. In unadjusted analyses, the hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS for VENmono vs VENcombo were HR 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.8; P = .7) and HR 1.2 (95% CI, 0.6-2.3; P = .5), respectively. When adjusting for differences between the cohorts, the addition of an anti-CD20 antibody in combination with VEN did not impact PFS (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0; P = .9) or OS (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.4-2.6; P = .8). We demonstrate comparable efficacy between VENmono and VENcombo in a heavily pretreated, high-risk, retrospective cohort, in terms of both response data and survival outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings

Site and situation specific management for smallholder agricultural enterprises

In Singh, P.; Ahlawat, I. P. S.; Gautam, R. C. (Eds.), Second International Agronomy Congress "Balancing food and environmental security: a continuing challenge," New Delhi, India, 26-30 November 2002 - Proceeding

Coping with seasonal climate variability in crop production: Toolbox component for smallholder land and water management

Paper presented at International Conference on Monsoon Environments: Agricultural and Hydrological Impacts of Seasonal Variability and Climate Change, 24-28 March 2003, ICTP, Trieste, Ital