MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 260 patients were recruited in this retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Clinical data, including treatment regimens and outcome, were collected and analysed.
RESULTS: A total of 211 patients were diagnosed with haemophilia A (HA) (severe disease, 72.5%) and 49 patients had haemophilia B (HB) (severe disease, 65.3%). The median age was 31 (IQR;2-84) years. Majority of the patients had at least one episode of musculoskeletal bleeding since diagnosis. The mean annual bleeding event (ABE) was 4.91 (SD±6.07) in 2018. Target joints were identified in 80.4% of the patients. Chronic arthropathy and synovitis collectively accounted for more than half of the musculoskeletal complications. 30.1% of the patients had contracted hepatitis C with less than half received treatment. Thirty-one patients (16.8%) with severe haemophilia developed inhibitor and 12 patients successfully underwent immune tolerance induction. More than three-quarters of the severe haemophilia patients were treated with factor concentrate prophylaxis. The mean prophylaxis dose for HA and HB were 41.3 (SD±19.1) and 48.6 (SD±21.5) IU/kg/week, respectively. In patients with severe disease, prophylaxis significantly reduced the ABE (5.45,9.03;p=0.005).
CONCLUSION: The importance of utilising a low to moderate dose regimen as prophylaxis in haemophilic patients is highlighted in our study. Future studies should include QOL assessment will further improve the management in haemophilia.
PURPOSE: This is a retrospective analytical study to determine the outcome of Multiple Myeloma patients who underwent ASCT in Ampang Hospital.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included a 5-year cohort of patients transplanted from 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2019. Data were obtained through electronic medical records. Prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using simple and multiple Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. All analyses were done using software R version 3.6.2 with validated statistical packages.
RESULTS: 139 patients were analyzed. The median age at transplant was 56 years old and 56.1% are males (n＝78). The most common subtype is IgG Kappa (n＝67, 48.2%). Only 93 patients in which the International Staging System (ISS) could be determined, and among them, 33.3% of patients (n＝31) have advanced stage Ⅲ disease. The most common induction received before ASCT was a bortezomib based regimen and/or an immunomodulatory (IMiD) based regimen. 63.3% of patients achieved at least a very good partial response (VGPR) before ASCT. Most patients received myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (n＝119, 85.6%). The mean cell dose is 3.68×106/kg. The median time to engraftment was 11 days for both platelet and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). With the median follow-up of 17.3 (range, 6.2-33.4) months, the median OS and PFS were not reached. The 1-year and 2-year PFS were 75% (95% CI 66-82%) and 52% (95% CI 42-62%), respectively. The 1-year and 2-year OS were 82% (95% CI 74-88%) and 70% (95% CI 60-78%), respectively. 6 patients (4.3%) had transplant-related mortality (TRM). IgA subtype was found to adversely affect PFS. Maintenance therapy and the absence of renal impairment was associated with better PFS and OS.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that ASCT following induction treatment is safe and beneficial to achieve a deeper remission status. In our study, the addition of maintenance therapy is associated with an improved outcome in PFS and OS.
METHODS: Records of patients with thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) were reviewed. Patients' ADAMTS13 activity levels were obtained, along with clinical/laboratory findings relevant to the PLASMIC score. Both PLASMIC scores and PLASMIC-LDH scores, in which LDH replaced traditional lysis markers, were calculated. We generated a receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve and compared the area under the curve values (AUC) to determine the predictive ability of each score.
RESULTS: 46 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 34 had ADAMTS13 activity levels of <10%. When the patients were divided into intermediate-to-high risk (scores 5‒7) and low risk (scores 0‒4), the PLASMIC score showed a sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 58.3%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86.8% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 87.5%. The PLASMIC-LDH score had a sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 33.3%, with a PPV of 80.5% and NPV of 80.0%.
CONCLUSION: Our study validated the utility of the PLASMIC score, and demonstrated PLASMIC-LDH as a reasonable alternative in the absence of traditional lysis markers, to help identify high-risk patients for treatment via plasma exchange.