Dataset Information

A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin with Polyclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin for the Prevention of Maternal Rh-Isoimmunization.

ABSTRACT: Objectives:To compare the efficacy and safety of monoclonal anti-Rhesus (anti-D) immunoglobulin (IgG) with polyclonal anti-D IgG in the prevention of maternal Rh-isoimmunization. Methods:This was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, comparative clinical trial conducted in the obstetric in-patient departments of nine tertiary care hospitals in India. 206 Rhesus (D)-negative women, not sensitized to Rh antigen, and delivering Rh positive babies, received postpartum intramuscular administration of monoclonal or polyclonal anti-D IgG. The main outcome measures were the proportion of subjects protected from Rh-isoimmunization, identified by a negative indirect Coombs test (ICT) result, at day 180 after anti-D IgG administration, and incidence of adverse events. Results:105 subjects were randomized to the monoclonal group and 101 to the polyclonal group. 94 from the monoclonal group had a negative ICT result and none had a positive ICT result at day 180, whereas 87 from the polyclonal group had a negative ICT result and one had a positive ICT result; the rest (11 and 13 subjects respectively) were lost to follow-up. A total of 5 adverse events were reported (3 in the monoclonal group and 2 in the polyclonal group); only one of these was serious. All the adverse events were judged to be unrelated to the interventional drug. None of the subjects in the monoclonal group developed immunogenic reaction to the monoclonal anti-D. Conclusion:The efficacy and safety of the monoclonal preparation of anti-D was comparable to the polyclonal preparation of anti-D when used in the prevention of maternal Rh-isoimmunization.Trial registration Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2015/09/006172.

SUBMITTER: Chauhan AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6765035 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin with Polyclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin for the Prevention of Maternal Rh-Isoimmunization.

Chauhan Anahita R AR Nandanwar Yogeshwar S YS Ramaiah Aruna A Yelikar Kanan A KA Rashmi M D MD Sachan Rekha R Mayekar Rahul V RV Trivedi Yamini N YN Paradkar Gopalkrishna V GV Patole Kiran P KP

Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India 20190603 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the efficacy and safety of monoclonal anti-Rhesus (anti-D) immunoglobulin (IgG) with polyclonal anti-D IgG in the prevention of maternal Rh-isoimmunization.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, comparative clinical trial conducted in the obstetric in-patient departments of nine tertiary care hospitals in India. 206 Rhesus (D)-negative women, not sensitized to Rh antigen, and delivering Rh positive babies, received postpartum intramuscular a ...[more]

PMID: 31598044

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeIntravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) is complicated by neuropathy and requires premedication to prevent hypersensitivity-type reactions. Paclitaxel is poorly absorbed orally; encequidar (E), a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, allows oral absorption.MethodsA phase III open-label study comparing oral paclitaxel plus E (oPac + E) 205 mg/m2 paclitaxel plus 15 mg E methanesulfonate monohydrate 3 consecutive days per week versus IVpac 175 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks was performed. Women with metastatic breast cancer and adequate organ function, at least 1 year from last taxane, were randomly assigned 2:1 to oPac + E versus IVpac. The primary end point was confirmed radiographic response using RECIST 1.1, assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsFour hundred two patients from Latin America were enrolled (265 oPac + E, 137 IVpac); demographics and prior therapies were balanced. The confirmed response (intent-to-treat) was 36% for oPac + E versus 23% for IVpac (P = .01). The PFS was 8.4 versus 7.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.768; 95.5% CI, 0.584 to 1.01; P = .046), and the OS was 22.7 versus 16.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.794; 95.5% CI, 0.607 to 1.037; P = .08). Grade 3-4 adverse reactions were 55% with oPac + E and 53% with IVpac. oPac + E had lower incidence and severity of neuropathy (2% v 15% > grade 2) and alopecia (49% v 62% all grades) than IVpac but more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and neutropenic complications, particularly in patients with elevated liver enzymes. On-study deaths (8% oPac + E v 9% IVpac) were treatment-related in 3% and 0%, respectively.ConclusionoPac + E increased the confirmed tumor response versus IVpac, with trends in PFS and OS. Neuropathy was less frequent and severe with oPac + E; neutropenic serious infections were increased. Elevated liver enzymes at baseline predispose oPac + E patients to early neutropenia and serious infections (funded by Athenex, Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02594371).

Dataset Information

A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin with Polyclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin for the Prevention of Maternal Rh-Isoimmunization.

Publications

A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin with Polyclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin for the Prevention of Maternal Rh-Isoimmunization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets