4.6 Article

A randomised pilot trial of the anti-von Willebrand factor aptamer ARC1779 in patients with type 2b von Willebrand disease

期刊

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 104, 期 3, 页码 563-570

出版社

SCHATTAUER GMBH-VERLAG MEDIZIN NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN
DOI: 10.1160/TH10-01-0027

关键词

Clinical trials; antiplatelet drugs; von Willebrand factor; thrombocytopenia; desmopressin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Desmopressin aggravates thrombocytopenia in type 2B von Willebrand disease (VWF type 2B) by release of large and hyper-adhesive von Willebrand Factor (VWF) multimers. This pilot study investigated whether the anti-VWF aptamer ARC1779 can prevent desmopressin-induced thrombocytopenia and interferes with the excessive VWF turnover in patients with VWF type 2B. Concentration effect curves of ARC1779 were established for five patients in vitro and two patients with VWF type 2B were treated by infusion of ARC1779, desmopressin, or their combination in a randomised, controlled, double-blind design. ARC1779 concentrations in the range of 1-3 mu g/ml blocked free A1 domain binding sites by 90% in vitro. In vivo, desmopressin alone induced a profound (-90%) drop in platelet counts in one of the patients. ARC1779 (4-5 mu g/ml) completely inhibited VWF A1 domains and prevented this desmopressin-induced platelet drop. Desmopressin alone increased VWF antigen two- to three-fold, accompanied by concordant changes in VWF Ristocetin cofactor activity (RCo) and coagulation factor VIII activity. ARC1779 substantially enhanced the desmopressin-induced maximal increase in these parameters, and improved multimer patterns. No treatment related adverse events were observed and no bleeding occurred despite marked thrombocytopenia. These data provide first proof of concept in humans and evidence that ARC1779 is a potent inhibitor of VWF. ARC1779 prevented the rapid consumption of VWF multimers together with agglutinated platelets that occurred in response to desmopressin challenge in patients with VWD type 2B.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据