BackgroundAutoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is characterized by an autoimmune-mediated destruction of red blood cells. Warm AIHA (wAIHA) represents 60% of AIHA cases and is associated with the positive detection of IgG and C3d in the direct antiglobulin test (DAT). This study aimed to assess the clinical and laboratorial differences between primary and secondary wAIHA patients from a referral center in Mexico City.MethodsAll patients diagnosed with wAIHA in our institution from January 1992 to December 2015 were included and received corticosteroids as the first-line treatment. We analyzed the response to the first-line treatment, relapse-free survival, and time to splenectomy.ResultsEighty-nine patients were included. Secondary wAIHA represented 55.1% of the cases. At diagnosis, secondary wAIHA patients showed a DAT mixed pattern more frequently than primary wAIHA patients (36.7 vs. 17.5%, P<0.001). In the survival analysis, patients with secondary wAIHA had a lower time to response (18 vs. 37 days, P=0.05), median disease-free survival (28.51 vs. 50.95 weeks, P=0.018), and time to splenectomy (43.5 vs. 61 wks, P=0.029) than those with primary wAIHA. Due to economic constraints, rituximab was considered as the third-line treatment in only two patients.ConclusionSecondary wAIHA may benefit from a longer low-dose steroid maintenance period mainly due to its shorter time to relapse and time to splenectomy than primary wAIHA.

BackgroundDifferent criteria have been used to diagnose mixed-phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL), which has impacted the number of individuals diagnosed with this pathology. Better outcomes have been reported when using acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)-type chemotherapy in the treatment of MPAL.MethodsWe compared the outcome of 4 groups of patients with MPAL. Group 1 included patients diagnosed using the 2008/2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification; group 2 included patients diagnosed using the European Group for the Immunological Characterization of Leukemias (EGIL) criteria; group 3 included patients diagnosed using either the EGIL or the 2008/2016 WHO criteria; and group 4 was comprised of patients diagnosed with MPAL using the EGIL classification only.ResultsWe found a significantly worse disease-free survival (groups 1-4) and overall survival (OS) (groups 2 and 3) when comparing MPAL patients to other acute leukemia (AL) patients. A significantly better OS was obtained in patients (groups 2-4) treated with ALL-type chemotherapy compared to acute myeloid leukemia (AML)-type regimens.ConclusionIn light of these results, and because a trend (P=0.06) was found with regard to a better OS in group 4 when compared to other AL patients, an argument can be made that the 2008/2016 WHO classification is underpowered to diagnose all MPAL cases, potentially resulting in the suboptimal treatment of some individuals with AL.