4.7 Article

Ibrutinib for chronic graft-versus-host disease after failure of prior therapy

期刊

BLOOD
卷 130, 期 21, 页码 2243-2250

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2017-07-793786

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is a serious complication of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with few effective options available after failure of corticosteroids. B and T cells play a role in the pathophysiology of cGVHD. Ibrutinib inhibits Brutontyrosine kinase in B cells and interleukin-2-inducible T-cell kinase in T cells. In preclinical models, ibrutinib reduced severity of cGVHD. This multicenter, open-label study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ibrutinib in patients with active cGVHD with inadequate response to corticosteroid-containing therapies. Forty-two patients who had failed 1 to 3 prior treatments received ibrutinib (420 mg) daily untilc GVHD progression. The primary efficacy end point was cGVHD response based on 2005 National Institutes of Health criteria. At a median follow-up of 13.9 months, best overall response was 67%; 71% of responders showed a sustained response for >= 20 weeks. Responses were observed across involved organs evaluated. Most patients with multiple cGVHD organ involvement had a multiorgan response. Median corticosteroid dose in responders decreased from 0.29 mg/kg per day at baseline to 0.12 mg/kg per day at week 49; 5 responders discontinued corticosteroids. The most common adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, muscle spasms, nausea, and bruising. Plasma levels of soluble factors associated with inflammation, fibrosis, and cGVHD significantly decreased over time with ibrutinib. Ibrutinib resulted in clinically meaningful responses with acceptable safety in patients with >= 1 prior treatments for cGVHD. Based on these results, ibrutinib was approved in the United States for treatment of adult patients with cGVHD after failure of 1 or more lines of systemic therapy.

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

4.7
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