Background Chemotherapy, radiation and autologous bone marrow transplant are conventional standard therapies in Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Nowadays the introduction of monoclonal antibodies has enhanced the specificity of treatment, reducing the toxicity and presenting synergism with conventional chemotherapy. Purpose To compare rituximab efficacy and safety in combination with CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine and prednisone) in the treatment of NHL in our hospital, with that published in the literature. Materials and methods Retrospective observational study of 116 patients diagnosed with NHL who received chemotherapy with R-CHOP (rituximab-CHOP) between January 2005 and December 2010. The authors reviewed the medical history (100%) and the data were analysed using SPSS predictive analytics software. Were recorded: demographic data (age, sex); efficacy (complete response (CR), partial response (PR), overall response rate (ORR), progression and relapse, overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS)); toxicity (haematological and non-haematological). Results 53.5% of patients were male and mean age at diagnosis was 59 years. The authors obtained an ORR of 80.2% (71.3% CR and 8.9% PR). 14.8% of patients did not respond, and 5% had an unknown response. The progression and relapse rates were 18.8% and 17.8% respectively. Projected median OS for responding patients was over 30 months and EFS after one year was 70.3%. Neutropenia, anaemia and thrombocytopenia rates were reported as 15.8%, 12.4% and 2.3% respectively. Infusion-related reactions were reported in 1.95% of patients, 72.2% during the first session. The detected rate of infection was relatively low, and 3.5% of all infections were microbiologically documented. Conclusions The results obtained were comparable to those of published studies in the literature for the treatment arm with R-CHOP in randomised patients (GELA NHL-95.5 study group, U.S. Intergroup Study, Mabthera International Trial MINT study). Neutropenia rates were higher than those found in the study of McLaughlin et al, while the other cell lines the results were similar.
Introduction: Limited data were published on the management of direct oral anticoagulants in the insertion of pacemaker and cardiac monitoring devices. This study describes the management and outcomes of edoxaban, a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor, in patients undergoing pacemaker or monitoring device implantation in routine clinical practice.Methods and Results: EMIT-AF/VTE collected data of patients from Europe, Korea, and Taiwan. Timing and duration of periprocedural interruption of edoxaban were at the treating physician's discretion. Pacemakers or monitoring devices were implanted into 136 patients who were evaluated from 5 days pre-until 30 days post-procedure. The primary outcomes were the incidences of acute thromboembolic events (ATE), ischemic events, and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined Major Bleeding; secondary outcomes included incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) and perioperative edoxaban interruption times. Conformance with European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Guidance on interruption of direct oral anticoagulant therapy was variable: of the cardiac monitoring device patients, where no interruption of therapy would be expected, nonetheless, 62.5% had interruption of treatment, whereas in pacemaker procedures, where interruption would be expected, 23.4% had no interruption. No ATE or ischemic events occurred.One case of CRNMB and two of minor bleeding occurred. All bleedings occurred more than 3 days after the procedure. Conclusion/Relevance:The periprocedural complication risk for edoxaban treated patients undergoing pacemaker or invasive cardiac monitoring implantation was low. This population of patients was well managed in routine practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.