ABSTRACT
In patients with advanced Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) achieved with bortezomib alone and bortezomib rituximab combination were 27-85% and 7.9 months, and 81% and 16.4 months, respectively. We checked the role of dexamethasone in combination with bortezomib by enrolling in a phase II trial 34 patients with relapsed/refractory WM. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 IV D1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days) was used for six cycles. In non-responding patients, dexamethasone (20 mg daily for two days) was added to each infusion after the second cycle. After two cycles, the Bayes estimated ORR was 43.2 (95% Credible Interval: 28.0-59.1%) using the informative prior. Two-year survival rate was 84.0% and the median PFS 15.3 months without difference between patients treated with or without dexamethasone. We conclude that dexamethasone must be associated to bortezomib-based regimen.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia/drug therapy , Aged , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Bortezomib/administration & dosage , Bortezomib/adverse effects , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Female , Hematologic Diseases/chemically induced , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Remission Induction , Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia/pathologyABSTRACT
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158235.].
ABSTRACT
In the present study, we examined the potential symptomatic and/or disease-modifying effects of monthly bee venom injections compared to placebo in moderatly affected Parkinson disease patients. We conducted a prospective, randomized double-blind study in 40 Parkinson disease patients at Hoehn & Yahr stages 1.5 to 3 who were either assigned to monthly bee venom injections or equivalent volumes of saline (treatment/placebo group: n = 20/20). The primary objective of this study was to assess a potential symptomatic effect of s.c. bee venom injections (100 µg) compared to placebo 11 months after initiation of therapy on United Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III scores in the « off ¼ condition pre-and post-injection at a 60 minute interval. Secondary objectives included the evolution of UPDRS III scores over the study period and [123I]-FP-CIT scans to evaluate disease progression. Finally, safety was assessed by monitoring specific IgE against bee venom and skin tests when necessary. After an 11 month period of monthly administration, bee venom did not significantly decrease UPDRS III scores in the « off ¼ condition. Also, UPDRS III scores over the study course, and nuclear imaging, did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Four patients were excluded during the trial due to positive skin tests but no systemic allergic reaction was recorded. After an initial increase, specific IgE against bee venom decreased in all patients completing the trial. This study did not evidence any clear symptomatic or disease-modifying effects of monthly bee venom injections over an 11 month period compared to placebo using a standard bee venom allergy desensitization protocol in Parkinson disease patients. However, bee venom administration appeared safe in non-allergic subjects. Thus, we suggest that higher administration frequency and possibly higher individual doses of bee venom may reveal its potency in treating Parkinson disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01341431.