Ischemic injury, which occurs as a result of sympathetic hyperactivity, plays an important role in heart failure. Melatonin is thought to have antiatherogenic, antioxidant, and vasodilatory effects. In this study, we investigated whether melatonin protects against ischemic heart failure (HF). In Wistar albino rats, HF was induced by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation and rats were treated with either vehicle or melatonin (10 mg/kg) for 4 weeks. At the end of this period, echocardiographic measurements were recorded and the rats were decapitated to obtain plasma and cardiac tissue samples. Lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and lysosomal enzymes (β-D-glucuronidase, β-galactosidase, β-D-N-acetyl-glucosaminidase, acid phosphatase, and cathepsin-D) were studied in plasma samples, while malondialdehyde and glutathione levels and Na+, K+-ATPase, caspase-3 and myeloperoxidase activities were determined in the cardiac samples. Sarco/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase (SERCA) and caveolin-3 levels in cardiac tissues were evaluated using Western blot analyses. Furthermore, caveolin-3 levels were also determined by histological analyses. In the vehicle-treated HF group, cardiotoxicity resulted in decreased cardiac Na+, K+-ATPase and SERCA activities, GSH contents and caveolin-3 levels, while plasma LDH, CK, and lysosomal enzyme activities and cardiac MDA and Myeloperoxidase (MPO) activities were found to be increased. On the other hand, melatonin treatment reversed all the functional and biochemical changes. The present results demonstrate that Mel ameliorates ischemic heart failure in rats. These observations highlight that melatonin is a promising supplement for improving defense mechanisms in the heart against oxidative stress caused by heart failure.

The loss of muscle mass and cachexia is commonly seen in hemodialysis (HD) patients and contribute to morbidity and mortality. The exact mechanism of this fact is multifactorial and still unclear. Myostatin, a transforming growth factor-ß family ligand, is released from the skeletal and heart muscle and may be responsible for muscle degradation and atrophy. The aim of this study is evaluation of the relationship between muscle mass and serum myostatin level in chronic HD patients. One hundred and forty HD patients (79 males, 28 diabetic, mean age; 53.96 ± 13.6) were included in this cross-sectional study. Muscle mass measurement was made with dual energy-X ray absorptiometry. Appendicular skeletal muscle index (ASMI) was used as a muscle mass indicator. The anthropometric and biochemistry data were obtained. Serum myostatin levels were determined by an ELISA kit. Serum myostatin levels were elevated when compared to controls (P <0.001), but no significant correlation with ASMI was observed (P = 0.624). ASMI significantly correlated with serum creatinine (P <0.001), creatine phosphokinase (P <0.001), prealbumin (P <0.012), albumin (P <0.039), transferrin (P <0.001), phosphorus (P <0.001), Ca×P (P <0.012), inversely with Kt/V (P <0.001); not with BUN (P = 0.739), parathyroid hormone (P = 0.698), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (P = 0.603), bicarbonate (P = 0.062); such that these parameters also have influence on muscle mass regulation. Our study indicated that myostatin levels were high in HD patients but had no relation with ASMI. Myostatin is a well-known regulator of muscle mass so further studies are needed to demonstrate possible relationship.

No abstract

Glofitamab is a CD3xCD20 bi‐specific antibody with two fragments directed to the CD20 antigen and a single CD3‐binding fragment. Encouraging response and survival rates were recently reported in a pivotal phase II expansion trial conducted in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B‐cell lymphoma. However, the real‐world data of patients of all ages with no strict selection criteria are still lacking. Herein, this retrospective study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients who received glofitamab via compassionate use in Turkey. Forty‐three patients from 20 centers who received at least one dose of the treatment were included in this study. The median age was 54 years. The median number of previous therapies was 4, and 23 patients were refractory to first‐line treatment. Twenty patients had previously undergone autologous stem cell transplantation. The median follow‐up time was 5.7 months. In efficacy‐evaluable patients, 21% and 16% of them achieved complete response and partial response, respectively. The median response duration was 6.3 months. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 3.3 and 8.8 months, respectively. None of the treatment‐responsive patients progressed during the study period, and their estimated 1‐year PFS and OS rate was 83%. The most frequently reported toxicity was hematological toxicity. Sixteen patients survived, while 27 died at the time of the analysis. The most common cause of death was disease progression. One patient died of cytokine release syndrome during the first cycle after receiving the first dose of glofitamab. Meanwhile, two patients died due to glofitamab‐related febrile neutropenia. This is the largest real‐world study on the effectiveness and toxicity of glofitamab treatment in R/R DLBCL patients. The median OS of 9 months seems promising in this heavily pretreated group. The toxicity related mortality rates were the primary concerns in this study.

Introduction: A vast majority of multiple myeloma (MM) patients requires subsequent lines of therapy following relapses. The choice of regimen following relapse is influenced by response, tolerance to prior therapies, as well as by disease and patient features. Treatment options are limited for those who develop triple-class refractory disease. In this setting, the role of a salvage autologous stem cell transplantation (sAHCT) is controversial. This unmet need has driven the development of new therapies with novel mechanisms of action. Selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, was recently approved by the FDA and EMA for use in heavily pretreated relapse refractory (RRMM) patients, including triple-class refractory RRMM and FDA has also approved the agent in patients with first relapse. In the absence of head-to-head studies, comparison of treatment options among triple-class treated patients is based on real world experience. Here we performed a retrospective comparison between outcomes following sAHCT versus Selinexor combinations administered among RRMMs. Patients & Methods: Between January 2015 and April 2021, 22 patients at our center underwent sAHCT for treatment of refractory relapse. A transplant was defined as salvage if the patient had already received one prior AHCT and underwent a further AHCT after evidence of disease progression not responding to second generation proteasome inhibitors (PI), İmmunomodulating agents (IMID) or antiCD38 monoclonal antibody. We compared the outcomes of these patients with 10 RRMM patients who had exhausted their treatment options and were progressing on their last line of therapy to receive Selinexor, dexamethasone in combination with either bortezomib (n=7) (XVd) or carfilzomib (n=3) (XCd) as a part of a Karyopharm Expanded Access Program (KEAP). Selinexor was administered 80-100 mg po weekly in combination. Response and disease progression were assessed according to the IMWG criteria. Results: Patients' characteristics and the outcome of treatments are shown in Table. The median age of patients was similar in both groups. Patients were heavily treated with a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (4-9) and 2 out of 10 carried high-risk cytogenetics in SVd group. Seven (31.8%) patients with high-risk cytogenetics underwent sAHCT. All patients were treated with or refractory to immunomodulators and proteasome inhibitors. Five patients responded to DCEP bridging therapy prior to sAHCT. Five patients received Selinexor after sAHCT. One patient underwent sAHCT due to progression under Selinexor treatment. In sAHCT group, 68.2% of patients relapsed within a median of 6.3 months (Figure-1). Figure-2 shows the impact of the prior lines of therapy and selinoxor on PFS.Adverse events on selinexor regimens included fatigue, nausea, thrombocytopenia which were managed with Selinexor dose adjustment and supportive care. Two patients eventually transitioned to new therapies, while 4 still remain on SVd due to continued response. Conclusion: Our results based on a small number of patients, compared with outcomes post sAHCT reflects comparable duration of response and disease control rates with Selinexor-PI regimens among selected patients. Hospitalization and prolonged infusions are not required with the selinexor regimens, and prolonged treatment is possible with advance in lines of therapy duration of response lessens with any treatment modality. Despite of a DCEP bridging therapy prior to sAHCT, Selinexor combos have achieved similar PFS even among triple class refractory MM patients. For countries where CAR-T therapies are not accessible, sAHCT and Selinexor combinations may be considered as a valid clinical option after failing CD38 monoclonal antibodies, PI and IMIDs. These data support the use of selinexor-based regimens in the treatment of relapsed MM, and given the potency of the combinations, in earlier lines of therapy including in patients who have received anti-CD38 mAbs. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kashyap: Karyopharm: Current Employment. Niblock: Karyopharm: Current Employment. Beksac: Amgen,Celgene,Janssen,Takeda,Oncopeptides,Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Selinexor has not been approved for myeloma patients in Turkey. It could be used as a part of Karyopharm Expanded Access program (KEAP).