Recombinant IFN-α2a-NGR exhibits higher inhibitory function on tumor neovessels formation compared with IFN-α2a in vivo and in vitro

Purpose We compared the efficacy of ofatumumab (O) versus rituximab (R) in combination with cisplatin, cytarabine, and dexamethasone (DHAP) salvage treatment, followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients and Methods Patients with CD201 DLBCL age >= 18 years who had experienced their first relapse or who were refractory to first-line R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone)-like treatment were randomly assigned between three cycles of R-DHAP or O-DHAP. Either O 1,000 mg or R 375 mg/m2 was administered for a total of four infusions (days 1 and 8 of cycle 1; day 1 of cycles 2 and 3 of DHAP). Patients who experienced a response after two cycles of treatment received the third cycle, followed by high-dose therapy and ASCT. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), with failure to achieve a response after cycle 2 included as an event. Results Between March 2010 and December 2013, 447 patients were randomly assigned. Median age was 57 years (range, 18 to 83 years); 17% were age >= 65 years; 63% had stage III and IV disease; 71% did not achieve complete response (CR) or experience response for, 1 year on first-line R-CHOP. Response rate for O-DHAP was 38% (CR, 15%) versus 42% (CR, 22%) for R-DHAP. ASCT on protocol was completed by 74 patients (33%) in the O arm and 83 patients (37%) in the R arm. PFS, event-free survival, and overall survival were not significantly different between O-DHAP versus R-DHAP: PFS at 2 years was 24% versus 26% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.42; P = .33); event-free survival at 2 years was 16% versus 18% (HR, 1.10; P=.35); and overall survival at 2 years was 41% versus 38% (HR, 0.90; P=.38). Positron emission tomography negativity before ASCT was highly predictive for superior outcome. Conclusion No difference in efficacy was found between O-DHAP and R-DHAP as salvage treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL. (C) 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Is there an ideal way to initiate antiplatelet therapy with aspirin? A crossover study on healthy volunteers evaluating different dosing schemes with whole blood aggregometry

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Guidelines recommend an early initiation of aspirin treatment in patients with acute cerebral ischemia. Comparative studies on the best starting dose for initiating aspirin therapy to achieve a rapid antiplatelet effect do not exist. This study evaluated the platelet inhibitory effect in healthy volunteers by using three different aspirin loading doses to gain a model for initiating antiplatelet treatment in acute strokes patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using whole blood aggregometry, this study with a prospective, uncontrolled, open, crossover design examined 12 healthy volunteers treated with three different aspirin loading doses: intravenous 500 mg aspirin, oral 500 mg aspirin, and a course of 200 mg aspirin on two subsequent days followed by a five-day course of 100 mg aspirin. Aspirin low response was defined as change of impedance exceeding 0 Ω after stimulation with arachidonic acid.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sufficient antiplatelet effectiveness was gained within 30 seconds when intravenous 500 mg aspirin was used. The mean time until antiplatelet effect was 74 minutes for 500 mg aspirin taken orally and 662 minutes (11.2 hours) for the dose scheme with 200 mg aspirin with a high inter- and intraindividual variability in those two regimes. Platelet aggregation returned to the baseline range during the wash-out phase within 4 days.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our study reveals that the antiplatelet effect differs significantly between the three different aspirin starting dosages with a high inter- and intraindividual variability of antiplatelet response in our healthy volunteers. To ensure an early platelet inhibitory effect in acute stroke patients, it could be advantageous to initiate the therapy with an intravenous loading dose of 500 mg aspirin. However, clinical outcome studies must still define the best way to initiate antiplatelet treatment with aspirin.</p

Serotonin Antagonism Improves Platelet Inhibition in Clopidogrel Low-Responders after Coronary Stent Placement: An In Vitro Pilot Study

Increased residual platelet reactivity remains a burden for coronary artery disease (CAD) patients who received a coronary stent and do not respond sufficiently to treatment with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel. We hypothesized that serotonin antagonism reduces high on-treatment platelet reactivity. Whole blood impedance aggregometry was performed with arachidonic acid (AA, 0.5 mM) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP, 6.5 µM) in addition to different concentrations of serotonin (1–100 µM) in whole blood from 42 CAD patients after coronary stent placement and 10 healthy subjects. Serotonin increased aggregation dose-dependently in CAD patients who responded to clopidogrel treatment: After activation with ADP, aggregation increased from 33.7±1.3% to 40.9±2.0% in the presence of 50 µM serotonin (p<0.05) and to 48.2±2.0% with 100 µM serotonin (p<0.001). The platelet serotonin receptor antagonist ketanserin decreased ADP-induced aggregation significantly in clopidogrel low-responders (from 59.9±3.1% to 37.4±3.5, p<0.01), but not in clopidogrel responders. These results were confirmed with light transmission aggregometry in platelet-rich plasma in a subset of patients. Serotonin hence increased residual platelet reactivity in patients who respond to clopidogrel after coronary stent placement. In clopidogrel low-responders, serotonin receptor antagonism improved platelet inhibition, almost reaching responder levels. This may justify further investigation of triple antiplatelet therapy with anti-serotonergic agents

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice : Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: M.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Novartis, and Takeda and grants from Janssen and Sanofi during the conduct of the study. E.T. has received grants from Janssen and personal fees from Janssen and Takeda during the conduct of the study, and grants from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Glaxo-Smith Kline outside the submitted work. M.V.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and Takeda outside the submitted work. M.C. reports honoraria from Janssen, outside the submitted work. M. B. reports grants from Janssen Cilag during the conduct of the study. M.D. has received honoraria for participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Novartis. H.S. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda outside the submitted work. V.P. reports personal fees from Janssen during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, and personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. W.W. has received personal fees and grants from Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Gilead, and Janssen and nonfinancial support from Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Janssen Pharmaceutical during the conduct of the study. V.L. reports funding from Janssen Global Services LLC during the conduct of the study and study support from Janssen-Cilag and Pharmion outside the submitted work. A.P. reports employment and shareholding of Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) during the conduct of the study. C.C. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. C.F. reports employment at Janssen Research and Development during the conduct of the study. F.T.B. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. The remaining authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The AuthorsMultiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.publishersversionPeer reviewe