Clinical and Molecular Evidence of Atovaquone and Azithromycin Resistance in Relapsed Babesia microti Infection Associated With Rituximab and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Simon MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6248624 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical and Molecular Evidence of Atovaquone and Azithromycin Resistance in Relapsed Babesia microti Infection Associated With Rituximab and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.
Simon Matthew S MS Westblade Lars F LF Dziedziech Alexis A Visone Joseph E JE Furman Richard R RR Jenkins Stephen G SG Schuetz Audrey N AN Kirkman Laura A LA
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20171001 7
Babesiosis treatment failures with standard therapy have been reported, but the molecular mechanisms are not well understood. We describe the emergence of atovaquone and azithromycin resistance associated with mutations in the binding regions of the target proteins of both drugs during treatment of an immunosuppressed patient with relapsing babesiosis. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have clinically significant coexisting medical conditions are less able to undergo standard chemotherapy. Effective therapies with acceptable side-effect profiles are needed for this patient population.In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of idelalisib, an oral inhibitor of the delta isoform of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, in combination with rituximab versus rituximab plus placebo. We randomly assigned 220 patients with decreased renal function, previous therapy-induced myelosuppression, or major coexisting illnesses to receive rituximab and either idelalisib (at a dose of 150 mg) or placebo twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board owing to overwhelming efficacy.The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the placebo group and was not reached in the idelalisib group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the idelalisib group, 0.15; P<0.001). Patients receiving idelalisib versus those receiving placebo had improved rates of overall response (81% vs. 13%; odds ratio, 29.92; P<0.001) and overall survival at 12 months (92% vs. 80%; hazard ratio for death, 0.28; P=0.02). Serious adverse events occurred in 40% of the patients receiving idelalisib and rituximab and in 35% of those receiving placebo and rituximab.The combination of idelalisib and rituximab, as compared with placebo and rituximab, significantly improved progression-free survival, response rate, and overall survival among patients with relapsed CLL who were less able to undergo chemotherapy. (Funded by Gilead; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01539512.).
| S-EPMC4161365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Venetoclax is approved as monotherapy and in combination with rituximab for relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Two Phase 1 studies (M12-175 [NCT01328626]; M13-365 [NCT01682616]) were conducted in which patients who initially responded and then progressed on venetoclax monotherapy could receive added rituximab. Ten patients were evaluated (M12-175, n = 8; M13-365, n = 2), and five (50%) responded again upon addition of rituximab, including three complete and two partial responses. Responses were ongoing after 5-10 months of follow-up. Addition of rituximab was well tolerated. These findings indicate potential clinical benefit with rituximab added to venetoclax post-progression in some patients with R/R CLL.
| S-EPMC9175959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewThere have been significant advances in the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over the past two decades. However, the intention of treatment remains control of the disease and delay of progression rather than a cure which remains largely elusive. Considering that CLL is mostly seen in older patients, there are multiple factors that play a role in the selection of CLL beyond the frontline treatment. Here, we review the concept of relapsed CLL, factors that predispose to relapse, and therapeutic options available to this patient population. We also review investigational therapies and provide a framework for selection of therapies in this setting.Recent findingsPlease check if the affiliations are presented correctly.Targeted therapies with continuous BTK inhibitors (BTKi) or fixed duration venetoclax plus anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy have established superiority over chemoimmunotherapy in relapsed CLL and have become the preferred standard of care treatment. The second-generation more selective BTK inhibitors (acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib) have shown improved safety profile compared to ibrutinib. However, resistance to the covalent BTK inhibitors may emerge and is commonly associated with mutations in BTK or other downstream enzymes. The novel non-covalent BTK inhibitors such as pirtobrutinib (Loxo-305) and nemtabrutinib (ARQ 531) are showing promising activities for relapsed CLL refractory to prior covalent BTKi. Other novel therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy have also shown significant activities for relapsed and refractory CLL. Measurable residual disease (MRD) assessment has a growing importance in venetoclax-based limited-duration therapy and there is mounting evidence that MRD negativity improves outcomes. However, it remains to be seen if this will become an established clinically significant endpoint. Further, the optimal sequence of various treatment options remains to be determined. Patients with relapsed CLL now have more options for the treatment of the disease. The choice of therapy is best individualized especially in the absence of direct comparisons of targeted therapies, and the coming years will bring more data on the best sequence of use of the therapeutic agents.
| S-EPMC10242240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe treatment of relapsed/refractory (RR) CLL has been revolutionized by the advent of the new oral inhibitors of B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and the pro-survival protein, B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2). Additionally, new and more potent monoclonal antibodies against CD20 have replaced/may replace rituximab in many settings. Areas covered: Herein, we review the entire therapeutic landscape of RR CLL, with particular attention to the new small-molecule kinase inhibitors and BH3-mimetics. We discuss preclinical data with these agents in CLL, cover available efficacy and safety information, and examine potential resistance mechanisms and possible rational combinations to circumvent them. Expert opinion: The availability of potent and selective inhibitors of BCR signaling and of the anti-apoptotic functions of BCL2 has enormously enhanced our therapeutic armamentarium, with unprecedented efficacy now observed in patients who historically had poor outcomes with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), e.g., those with deletion 17p/11q and/or IGHV-unmutated disease. The next challenge is to optimally sequence these agents and develop rational combinations that will hopefully lead to deeper and more durable remissions than ever seen before. Indeed, long term relapse free survival, already achievable with CIT in patients with genetically favorable-risk disease, now appears to be a realistic possibility for most patients with CLL.
| S-EPMC6488229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData regarding the efficacy of treatment with ibrutinib-rituximab, as compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been limited.MethodsIn a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients 70 years of age or younger with previously untreated CLL to receive either ibrutinib and rituximab for six cycles (after a single cycle of ibrutinib alone), followed by ibrutinib until disease progression, or six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival, and overall survival was a secondary end point. We report the results of a planned interim analysis.ResultsA total of 529 patients underwent randomization (354 patients to the ibrutinib-rituximab group, and 175 to the chemoimmunotherapy group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the results of the analysis of progression-free survival favored ibrutinib-rituximab over chemoimmunotherapy (89.4% vs. 72.9% at 3 years; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.56; P<0.001), and the results met the protocol-defined efficacy threshold for the interim analysis. The results of the analysis of overall survival also favored ibrutinib-rituximab over chemoimmunotherapy (98.8% vs. 91.5% at 3 years; hazard ratio for death, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.54; P<0.001). In a subgroup analysis involving patients without immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region (IGHV) mutation, ibrutinib-rituximab resulted in better progression-free survival than chemoimmunotherapy (90.7% vs. 62.5% at 3 years; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.50). The 3-year progression-free survival among patients with IGHV mutation was 87.7% in the ibrutinib-rituximab group and 88.0% in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.36). The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (regardless of attribution) was similar in the two groups (in 282 of 352 patients [80.1%] who received ibrutinib-rituximab and in 126 of 158 [79.7%] who received chemoimmunotherapy), whereas infectious complications of grade 3 or higher were less common with ibrutinib-rituximab than with chemoimmunotherapy (in 37 patients [10.5%] vs. 32 [20.3%], P<0.001).ConclusionsThe ibrutinib-rituximab regimen resulted in progression-free survival and overall survival that were superior to those with a standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen among patients 70 years of age or younger with previously untreated CLL. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; E1912 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02048813.).
| S-EPMC6908306 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Objectives: BTK and BCL2 inhibitors have changed the treatment paradigms of high-risk and elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), but their long-term efficacy and toxicity are still unknown and the costs are considerable. Our previous data showed that Rituximab (Rtx) and high-dose methylprednisolone (HDMP) can be an effective and safe treatment option for relapsed high-risk CLL patients. Materials and Methods: We explored the efficacy and safety of a higher Rtx dose in combination with a shorter (3-day) schedule of HDMP in relapsed elderly or unfit CLL patients. Results: Twenty-five patients were included in the phase-two, single-arm trial. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 11 months (range 10-12). Median OS was 68 (range 47-89) months. Adverse events (AE) were mainly grade I-II° (77%) and no deaths occurred during the treatment period. Conclusions: 3-day HDMP and Rtx was associated with clinically meaningful improvement in most patients. The median PFS in 3-day and 5-day HDMP studies was similar and the toxicity of the 3-day HDMP schedule proved to be lower. The HDMP and Rtx combination can still be applied in some relapsed high-risk and elderly or unfit CLL patients if new targeted therapies are contraindicated or unavailable. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01576588).
| S-EPMC6915691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-delta (PI3Kδ) signaling is critical for proliferation, survival, homing, and tissue retention of malignant B cells. Idelalisib, a selective oral inhibitor of PI3Kδ, has shown considerable single-agent activity in patients with heavily pretreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). This study evaluated the safety and clinical activity of idelalisib in combination with bendamustine (IB) or rituximab (IR) or both (IBR) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL. Idelalisib was given continuously at 100 or 150 mg twice daily in combination with rituximab (375 mg/m2 weekly × 8 doses), bendamustine (70 or 90 mg/m2, days 1 and 2 every 4 weeks × 6 cycles) or BR (rituximab, 375 mg/m2 every 4 weeks and bendamustine, 70 mg/m2, days 1 and 2 every 4 weeks × 6 cycles). The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Fifty-two patients (median age 64 years) with a median of 3 prior therapies were enrolled. ORR was 84.6% (89.5% IR group, 77.8% IB group, and 86.7% IBR group). The overall median PFS was 25.6 months, and median DOR was 26.6 months. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (≥10% of patients) were pneumonia (19.2%), diarrhea (13.5%), and febrile neutropenia (17.3%). Idelalisib-based combination therapy with bendamustine and/or rituximab was highly active, resulting in durable tumor control in patients with heavily pretreated R/R CLL. However, its tolerability profile suggests that these regimens should be used cautiously in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01088048.
| S-EPMC6745995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We report follow-up results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 HELIOS trial of ibrutinib+bendamustine and rituximab (BR) for previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) without deletion 17p. Overall, 578 patients were randomized 1:1 to either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) or placebo, in combination with 6 cycles of BR, followed by ibrutinib or placebo alone. Median follow-up was 34.8 months (range: 0.1-45.8). Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached for ibrutinib+BR, versus 14.3 months for placebo+BR (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.206 [0.159-0.265]; P < 0.0001); 36-month PFS rates were 68.0% versus 13.9%, respectively. The results are consistent with the primary analysis findings (HR = 0.203, as assessed by independent review committee, with 17-month median follow-up). Median overall survival was not reached in either arm; HR (95% CI) for ibrutinib+BR versus placebo: 0.652 (0.454-0.935; P = 0.019). Minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative response rates were 26.3% for ibrutinib+BR and 6.2% for placebo+BR (P < 0.0001). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (including grades 3-4) were generally consistent with the initial HELIOS report. These long-term data support improved survival outcomes and deepening responses with ibrutinib+BR compared with BR in relapsed CLL/SLL.
| S-EPMC6484712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the Asia-Pacific region, treatment options are limited for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Rituximab is widely used in this setting when purine analog-based therapies are not appropriate. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib compared with rituximab in a randomized, open-label phase 3 study in predominantly Asian patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. Patients (N = 160) were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive 420 mg ibrutinib (n = 106) until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity or up to six cycles of rituximab (n = 54). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Rituximab-treated patients could crossover to receive ibrutinib after confirmed PD. At data cutoff, median treatment duration was 16.4 months for ibrutinib and 4.6 months for rituximab. Ibrutinib significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.180, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.105-0.308). ORR was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) with ibrutinib (53.8%) than with rituximab (7.4%). At a median follow-up of 17.8 months, ibrutinib improved OS compared with rituximab (HR = 0.446; 95% CI: 0.221-0.900; P = 0.0206). Overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between treatments and was not exposure-adjusted. With ibrutinib, most common AEs were diarrhea and platelet count decreased; with rituximab, most common AEs were neutrophil count decreased and platelet count decreased. Grade ≥3 AEs were reported in 82.7% of ibrutinib-treated patients and 59.6% of rituximab-treated patients. Ibrutinib improved PFS, ORR, and OS compared with rituximab and displayed a manageable safety profile in Asian patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL.
| S-EPMC5911578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common type of leukemia and the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab, represents the therapeutic gold standard for more than 2 decades in this pathology, when used in combination with chemotherapy. However, some patients experience treatment resistance or rapid relapses, and in particular, those harboring a 17p/TP53 deletion (del(17p)). This resistance could be explained by a chemo-resistance, but it could also result from the direct impact of del(17p) on the pharmacokinetics of rituximab, which represents the aim of the present study. Accordingly, 44 CLL patients were included in the study, and among them 9 presented a del(17p). Next, a total of 233 rituximab sera were selected for a pharmacokinetic study and analyzed in a two-compartment model showing important differences when del(17p) CLL patients were compared with non-del(17p) patients treated with rituximab and chemotherapy: (1) clearance of rituximab was faster; (2) central volume of rituximab distribution V1 (peripheral blood) was reduced while peripheral volume V2 (lymphoid organs and tissues) was increased; and (3) the rate of rituximab elimination (Kout) was faster. In contrast, the group with a better prognosis harboring isolated del(13q) presented a slower rate of elimination (Kout). Pharmacokinetic parameters were independent from the other factors tested such as age, sex, chemotherapy regimen (fludarabine/cyclophosphamide versus bendamustine), IGHV mutational status, and FCGR3A 158VF status. In conclusion, this study provides an additional argument to consider that del(17p) is effective not only to control chemoresistance but also monoclonal antibody activity, based on higher rituximab turnover.
| S-EPMC6352369 | biostudies-other