Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) was proposed as a treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) in 1995 based on favorable results in animal models including experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. These initial or first-generation trials were developed by medical oncology subspecialists, used malignancy-specific myeloablative transplantation regimens, and selected patients with secondary progressive MS with rapid progression of disability. In general, these trials suffered from higher than anticipated toxic reactions including treatment-related and disease-related mortality, continued loss of brain volume as seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and, at least in some patients, continued progressive disability despite marked attenuation or absence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI. Learning from these experiences, second-generation transplantation trials for MS are using MS-specific nonmyeloablative transplantation regimens and selecting for active relapses despite the use of interferon treatment in patients with less accumulated disability. While still preliminary, results using second-generation nonmyeloablati

Frontline low-dose alemtuzumab with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide prolongs progression-free survival in high-risk CLL

The randomized Haemato Oncology Foundation for Adults in The Netherlands 68 phase 3 trial compared front-line chemotherapy with chemotherapy plus the CD52 monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia, defined as at least 1 of the following: unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain genes, deletion 17p or 11q, or trisomy 12. Fit patients were randomized to receive either 6 28-day cycles of oral FC chemotherapy (days 1 through 3: fludarabine 40 mg/m(2) per day and cyclophosphamide 250 mg/m(2) per day: n = 139) or FC plus subcutaneous alemtuzumab 30 mg day 1 (FCA, n = 133). FCA prolonged the primary end point, progression-free survival (3-year progression-free survival 53 vs 37%, P = .01), but not the secondary end point, overall survival (OS). However, a post hoc analysis showed that FCA increased OS in patients younger than 65 years (3-year OS 85% vs 76%, P = .035). FCA also increased the overall response rate (88 vs 78%, P = .036), and the bone marrow minimal residual disease-negative complete remission rate (64% vs 43%, P = .016). Opportunistic infections were more frequent following FCA, but without an increase in treatment related mortality (FCA: 3.8%, FC: 4.3%). FCA improves progression-free survival in high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia. As anticipated, FCA is more immunosuppressive than FC, but with due vigilance, does not lead to a higher treatment-related mortality. This study was registered at www.trialregister.nl as trial no. NTR52

Soluble CD52 is an indicator of disease activity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia

CD52 is a glycoprotein expressed on normal as well as leukemic immune cells and shed as soluble CD52 (sCD52). We studied sCD52 levels in three CLL cohorts: the 'early', the 'high-risk', and the 'ibrutinib-treated'. The 'high-risk' patients had significantly higher sCD52 levels than the 'early' patients. For the 'early' patients, high sCD52 levels were associated with a significantly shorter time to first treatment. Regarding prognostic factors, no clear correlations with stage, IGHV, or beta-2-microglobulin were found; in a cox multivariate analysis of the 'early' patients, sCD52 and IGHV both had independent prognostic value. Following chemo-immunotherapy, sCD52 decreased in parallel with leukocytes while during ibrutinib treatment and ibrutinib-induced ymphocytosis, sCD52 decreased along with lymph node reductions. In vitro IgM stimulation of CLL cells led to increased sCD52 levels in the medium. Our findings indicate that sCD52 reflects disease activity and potentially treatment efficacy in CL

Rationale and design of the EU‐CERT‐ICD prospective study:comparative effectiveness of prophylactic ICD implantation

Abstract Aims: The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU‐CERT‐ICD) aims to assess its current clinical value. Methods and results: The EU‐CERT‐ICD is a prospective investigator‐initiated non‐randomized, controlled, multicentre observational cohort study performed in 44 centres across 15 European Union countries. We will recruit 2250 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and a guideline indication for primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This sample will include 1500 patients at their first ICD implantation and 750 patients who did not receive a primary prevention ICD despite having an indication for it (non‐randomized control group). The primary endpoint is all‐cause mortality; the co‐primary endpoint in ICD patients is time to first appropriate shock. Secondary endpoints include sudden cardiac death, first inappropriate shock, any ICD shock, arrhythmogenic syncope, revision procedures, quality of life, and cost‐effectiveness. At baseline (and prior to ICD implantation if applicable), all patients undergo 12‐lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and Holter ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as detailed documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Genetic biobanking is also organized. As of August 2018, baseline data of 2265 patients are complete. All subjects will be followed for up to 4.5 years. Conclusions: The EU‐CERT‐ICD study will provide a necessary update about clinical effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical and ECG risk markers

Rationale and design of the EU-CERT-ICD prospective study: comparative effectiveness of prophylactic ICD implantation

AIMS: The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD) aims to assess its current clinical value. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EU-CERT-ICD is a prospective investigator-initiated non-randomized, controlled, multicentre observational cohort study performed in 44 centres across 15 European Union countries. We will recruit 2250 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and a guideline indication for primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This sample will include 1500 patients at their first ICD implantation and 750 patients who did not receive a primary prevention ICD despite having an indication for it (non-randomized control group). The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality; the co-primary endpoint in ICD patients is time to first appropriate shock. Secondary endpoints include sudden cardiac death, first inappropriate shock, any ICD shock, arrhythmogenic syncope, revision procedures, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. At baseline (and prior to ICD implantation if applicable), all patients undergo 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and Holter ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as detailed documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Genetic biobanking is also organized. As of August 2018, baseline data of 2265 patients are complete. All subjects will be followed for up to 4.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The EU-CERT-ICD study will provide a necessary update about clinical effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical and ECG risk markers.peerReviewe