4.6 Article

Serum IgM level as predictor of symptomatic hyperviscosity in patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 177, Issue 5, Pages 717-725

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.14743

Keywords

Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia; hyperviscosity; immunoglobulin M; MYD88 mutation; CXCR4 mutation

Categories

Funding

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  2. Celgene
  3. Novartis
  4. Takeda
  5. Janssen
  6. Pharmacyclics
  7. Abbvie
  8. Biogen
  9. Gilead
  10. Millennium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Symptomatic hyperviscosity is a common clinical manifestation in patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM) and high serum IgM levels. Prompt intervention is required to prevent catastrophic events, such as retinal or central nervous system bleeding. Identifying patients at high risk of symptomatic hyperviscosity might support the decision to treat asymptomatic patients before irreversible damage occurs. We carried out a large retrospective study in 825 newly diagnosed WM patients, of who 113 (14%) developed symptomatic hyperviscosity. The median serum IgM level at the time of symptomatic hyperviscosity was 61.8 g/l (range 31-124 g/l). Forty-four patients (36%) had symptomatic hyperviscosity at the time of WM diagnosis. A serum IgM level >60 g/l at diagnosis was associated with a median time to symptomatic hyperviscosity of 3 months, whereas the median time for patients with serum IgM level of 50.01-60 g/l was approximately 3 years. Adjusting for other clinical factors, the odds of developing symptomatic hyperviscosity were 370-fold higher with serum IgM levels >60 g/l, and showed an association with CXCR4 mutational status. Symptomatic hyperviscosity did not impact overall survival (P = 0.12). The findings support the use of serum IgM level >60 g/l as a criterion for initiation of therapy in an otherwise asymptomatic WM patient.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available