NCCAM/NCI Phase 1 Study of Mistletoe Extract and Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose. European Mistletoe (Viscum album L.) extracts (mistletoe) are commonly used for cancer treatment in Europe. This phase I study of gemcitabine (GEM) and mistletoe in advanced solid cancers (ASC) evaluated: (1) safety, toxicity, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD), (2) absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery, (3) formation of mistletoe lectin antibodies (ML ab), (4) cytokine plasma concentrations, (5) clinical response, and (6) pharmacokinetics of GEM. Methods. Design: increasing mistletoe and fixed GEM dose in stage I and increasing doses of GEM with a fixed dose of mistletoe in stage II. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were grade (G) 3 nonhematologic and G4 hematologic events; MTD was reached with 2 DLTs in one dosage level. Response in stage IV ASC was assessed with descriptive statistics. Statistical analyses examined clinical response/survival and ANC recovery. Results. DLTs were G4 neutropenia, G4 thrombocytopenia, G4 acute renal failure, and G3 cellulitis, attributed to mistletoe. GEM 1380 mg/m2 and mistletoe 250 mg combined were the MTD. Of 44 patients, 24 developed nonneutropenic fever and flu-like syndrome. GEM pharmacokinetics were unaffected by mistletoe. All patients developed ML3 IgG antibodies. ANC showed a trend to increase between baseline and cycle 2 in stage I dose escalation. 6% of patients showed partial response, 42% stable disease. Median survival was 200 days. Compliance with mistletoe injections was high. Conclusion. GEM plus mistletoe is well tolerated. No botanical/drug interactions were observed. Clinical response is similar to GEM alone

Does rapid HIV disease progression prior to combination antiretroviral therapy hinder optimal CD4 + T-cell recovery once HIV-1 suppression is achieved?

Objective: This article compares trends in CD4+ T-cell recovery and proportions achieving optimal restoration (>=500 cells/µl) after viral suppression following combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) initiation between rapid and nonrapid progressors. Methods: We included HIV-1 seroconverters achieving viral suppression within 6 months of cART. Rapid progressors were individuals experiencing at least one CD4+ less than 200 cells/µl within 12 months of seroconverters before cART. We used piecewise linear mixed models and logistic regression for optimal restoration. Results: Of 4024 individuals, 294 (7.3%) were classified as rapid progressors. At the same CD4+ T-cell count at cART start (baseline), rapid progressors experienced faster CD4+ T-cell increases than nonrapid progressors in first month [difference (95% confidence interval) in mean increase/month (square root scale): 1.82 (1.61; 2.04)], which reversed to slightly slower increases in months 1–18 [-0.05 (-0.06; -0.03)] and no significant differences in 18–60 months [-0.003 (-0.01; 0.01)]. Percentage achieving optimal restoration was significantly lower for rapid progressors than nonrapid progressors at months 12 (29.2 vs. 62.5%) and 36 (47.1 vs. 72.4%) but not at month 60 (70.4 vs. 71.8%). These differences disappeared after adjusting for baseline CD4+ T-cell count: odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.86 (0.61; 1.20), 0.90 (0.38; 2.17) and 1.56 (0.55; 4.46) at months 12, 36 and 60, respectively. Conclusion: Among people on suppressive antiretroviral therapy, rapid progressors experience faster initial increases of CD4+ T-cell counts than nonrapid progressors, but are less likely to achieve optimal restoration during the first 36 months after cART, mainly because of lower CD4+ T-cell counts at cART initiation