4.5 Article

First-line immunosuppressive therapy with rATG and CsA for severe aplastic anemia: 15 years' experience

期刊

ANNALS OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 101, 期 11, 页码 2405-2412

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-04952-2

关键词

Antithymocyte globulin; Aplastic anemia; Survival; And Immunosuppressive therapy

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81900127]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the hematologic responses and long-term overall survival outcomes in severe aplastic anemia (SAA) patients who received rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) and cyclosporine as first-line immunosuppressive therapy. The results showed that 3 mg/kg/day rATG is effective as first-line treatment for SAA.
Rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) instead of horse ATG has been used for severe aplastic anemia (SAA) patients in China. This study aimed to investigate the hematologic responses and long-term overall survival (OS) outcomes in SAA patients who received rATG and cyclosporine as first-line immunosuppressive therapy. We analyzed data of 542 SAA patients treated with this therapy between 2005 and 2019. The median age was 20 (range, 2-80) years, and the median follow-up time was 45.5 (range, 0.1-191.4) months. The early mortality rate was 3.9%. The overall response rates (ORRs) were 40.2%, 56.1%, and 62.4% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. The 6- and 12-month ORR of patients treated with 3 mg/kg/d of rATG in 2015-2019 seemed higher than that of patients treated with 3.5-3.75 mg/kg/day in 2005-2014 (60.2% vs. 54.9%, P = 0.30 and 69.9% vs. 60.1%, P = 0.049, respectively). The 10-year cumulative incidences of relapse and clonal evolution were 10.6 +/- 2.9% and 7.5 +/- 1.5%, respectively. The 10-year OS rate and event-free survival rate were 80.1 +/- 2.1% and 75.6 +/- 3.7%, respectively. Age, disease severity, treatment periods, and the interval from diagnosis to IST were independent predictors of OS. In conclusion, 3 mg/kg/day rATG is effective as first-line treatment for SAA.

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

4.5
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