RESUMO
In 2022, sickle cell disease (SCD) continues to affect the lives of millions of people, being one of the most frequently inherited blood disorders worldwide. Recently, several new therapies have been FDA approved for the treatment of SCD. The complexity of the pathophysiology of sickling has given opportunity to the evolution of several modalities of therapies. Nonetheless, the potential for complementary targeting of HbS polymerization, vasocclusion, and other inflammatory pathways remains controversial. None of these drugs can be considered a single curative line of treatment. With the advancement of CRISPR/Cas9 technology, autologous transplant of gene-edited hematopoietic stem cells could possibly provide a cure for most patients with SCD. The advantage of this approach over the conventional stem cell transplantation is that it decreases the need for immuno-suppressive drugs and the risk of graft-versus-host disease. In addition, recent technological advances can reduce the off-target effects, but long-term monitoring is needed to ensure the reliability of these methods in the clinical setting. This review explores the efficacy and safety of combination therapies and contrasting this alternative with the challenges that exist with sickle cell gene therapy using CRISPR.
RESUMO
COVID-19 is a systemic infection that leads to multisystem affection, including hematological changes. On the other hand, the patients who have certain hematological diseases are more susceptible to COVID-19 infection. The aim of this review is to examine the wide spectrum of hematological changes that are reported to occur due to COVID-19 infection. Most of the studies over the past year mainly show that most of these changes are mainly non-specific, but are of prognostic value. On the other hand, the susceptibility of hematological patients to COVID-19 infection and complications remains questionable. Patients with certain hematological diseases (including malignancy) and those who are treated by aggressive immunosuppressive therapy have shown higher rates of COVID-19 infection and complications. On the other hand, for most of the patients suffering from other chronic hematological conditions, no evidence has shown a greater risk of infection, compared to the general population.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Children with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) may require second-line ITP therapies. The high remission rate in pediatric patients, need for extended-duration use of thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs), drug adherence, potential side effects, monitoring, and cost effectiveness are factors that should be considered in decision-making about second-line therapies. Rituximab (RTX) has been used off-label for years to treat ITP but there are limited studies about its efficacy and safety in children. To date, no studies have directly compared TPO-RAs with RTX for the treatment of childhood ITP. METHODS: This systematic review analyzed the overall platelet response, durability of treatment effect, and safety for RTX use in comparison to TPO-RAs in pediatric ITP. MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched through December 2020 and meta-analysis was conducted using proportions of success/failure for each intervention in the selected studies. RESULTS: The proportion of participants achieving the primary endpoint of a platelet response above 50,000 was similar for TPO-RAs (proportion = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.63-0.78) and RTX (proportion = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.82). However, considerable variation was found between the two groups with regards to the sustainability of the response and other secondary outcomes such as need for rescue and adverse events. RTX was associated with higher rates of rescue therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of prospective pediatric ITP studies, RTX and TPO-RAs had similar rates of overall platelet response but differed in other important measures. Prospective comparative studies are needed to better characterize second-line treatments for pediatric ITP.