Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of anagrelide as a first-line drug in cytoreductive treatment-naive essential thrombocythemia patients in a real-world setting.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to retrospectively assess the efficacy and safety of anagrelide in cytoreduction therapy-naïve essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients in a real-world setting.

Method

Data from 53 ET patients who received anagrelide as a first-line therapy were reviewed for patient characteristics, antiplatelet status, cytoreduction status, therapeutic effects, adverse events, thrombohemorrhagic event development, progression to myelofibrosis or acute leukemia, and cause of death.

Results

The rate of achieving a platelet count of <600 × 10⁹ /L during anagrelide monotherapy was 83.0%. Adverse events occurred in 32 of 53 patients, and tended to be slightly more severe in patients with cardiac failure; however, they were mostly tolerable. The therapeutic effect of anagrelide was consistent, regardless of genetic mutation profiles. The incidence of anemia as an adverse event was significantly higher in the CALR mutation-positive group. Favorable platelet counts were also achieved in patients for whom hydroxyurea was introduced as a replacement for anagrelide or in addition to anagrelide because of unresponsiveness or intolerance to treatment.

Conclusion

In Japanese cytoreduction therapy-naïve ET patients, anagrelide administration as a first-line therapy demonstrated favorable effects in reducing platelet counts, and its safety profile that was generally consistent with those in previous reports.

SUBMITTER: Ito T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6851998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are 3 main epileptic conditions in hospital settings that may require intravenous antiepileptic treatment: status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures. Generic intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV) (Focale; Great Eastern Drug Co, Bangkok, Thailand), has been reported to have comparable efficacy to original IV LEV for treating status epilepticus and acute repetitive convulsive seizures in a randomized controlled trial. At present, there are limited data on the efficacy and tolerability of generic intravenous LEV in real-world situations.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of generic IV LEV in a real-world setting.MethodsA retrospective study and analyses were conducted. All adult patients who used IV LEV at University Hospital, Khon Kaen University, Thailand from June 1, 2019, until February 15, 2020, were included. Data were analyzed and reported in terms of the efficacy and tolerability of generic IV LEV.ResultsNinety-three patients received IV LEV by 3 indications: status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures. The proportions of these 3 indications were 41.94% (39 patients), 9.67% (9 patients), and 48.39% (45 patients), respectively. The average seizure control rate at 24 hours was 89.25%. The seizure control rate was significantly higher in the acute repetitive convulsive seizures and postoperative seizure groups than in the status epilepticus group when generic IV LEV was given as the first-line treatment (75.00%; 88.37% vs 50.00%; P 0.035). The average length of hospital stay was 18.24 (25.40) days. There was no significant discharge status among the 3 groups (P = 0.348). Moreover, the average mortality rate was 5.38%. Side effects were reported in 14 patients (15.05%). The 2 most common side effects were vomiting and bronchospasm (3 patients; 3.22%). There were 10 patients with uncontrolled seizures at 24 hours (10.75%). The only factor associated with uncontrolled seizures at 24 hours was a history of epilepsy. The uncontrolled seizure group had a higher proportion of epilepsy patients than the seizure-controlled group (70.00% vs 33.73%; P = 0.037). Poor discharge status (not improved/death) was 18.28% (17 patients). There was no significant factor between those with an improved or poor discharge status.ConclusionsGeneric IV LEV was effective and relatively well tolerated in the 3 clinical settings (ie, status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures). Further clinical data are still required to confirm the results of this study.(Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2022; 83:XXX-XXX).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare surgical success, postoperative intraocular pressure and complication rates between trabeculectomy and XEN gelstent surgery in a cohort of glaucoma patients in a typical clinical setting.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with refractory open-angle glaucoma including patients who underwent either stand-alone XEN gelstent insertion with Mitomycin C or trabeculectomy with Mitomycin C between 2016 and 2018 at the University Eye Hospital Mainz, Germany. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of surgical success 1 year after surgery. Patients with an IOP ?18mmHg, an intraocular pressure reduction of >20% and in no need of revision surgery or topical medication were considered a complete surgical success. If topical therapy was necessary, they were considered a qualified success. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was carried out for the primary outcome including gender, age, preoperative intraocular pressure and number of medication classes used preoperatively as adjustment variables.Results171 eyes of 144 patients were included, including 82 eyes of 58 patients in the XEN group and 89 eyes of 86 patients in the trabeculectomy group. The primary outcome defined as the proportion of surgical success after 1 year (mean 11.1 months ± 2.2) was similar for both groups. The complete success proportion was 65.5% (95%-CI: 55.6-75.9%) in the trabeculectomy group, and 58.5% (95%-CI: 47.6-69.4%) in the XEN group and not statistically different in our analysis model (crude OR = 0.61; 95%-CI: 0.31-1.22; adjusted OR = 0.66; 95%-CI: 0.32-1.37). The intraocular pressure reduction, as secondary outcome measure, was higher in the trabeculectomy group (10.5 mmHg) compared to the XEN group (7.2 mmHg; p = 0.003) at the 12-month follow-up.ConclusionBoth XEN gelstent implantation and trabeculectomy show similar proportions of surgical success and of complications and are therefore both recommendable for clinical routine. However, trabeculectomy seems to be more effective in lowering intraocular pressure than the XEN implantation. A prospective randomized clinical trial is necessary to evaluate differences in the long-term clinical outcome.