Search

If we run fast enough can we catch up with the past get a jump on the future does the moment hold us back or do we take it with [...]

Lenalidomide and rituximab (R2) is an effective frontline treatment for patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). We investigated the safety and efficacy of addition of the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib to R2 for treatment of iNHL through a phase I/II clinical trial for high-risk patients. Twenty patients were enrolled, 18 were treated. The target dose of ixazomib 4 mg weekly was achieved during dose escalation. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were low grade gastrointestinal, rash, neuropathy, and myalgia/arthralgia. There were 33% grade 2 and 17% grade 3 infections. With median follow-up of 5.2 years, four patients discontinued treatment due to lymphoma progression. Best overall response rate (ORR) was 61.2% [55.6% CR, 5.6% PR): 22.2% had stable disease and 16.7% had disease progression. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression free and overall survival (OS) were 73% and 87% at 36 months, respectively. R2 can safely be combined with ixazomib for treatment-naïve iNHL patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lenalidomide and rituximab (R 2 ) is an effective frontline treatment for patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). We investigated the safety and efficacy of addition of the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib to R 2 for treatment of iNHL through a phase I/II clinical trial for high-risk patients. Twenty patients were enrolled, 18 were treated. The target dose of ixazomib 4 mg weekly was achieved during dose escalation. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were low grade gastrointestinal, rash, neuropathy, and myalgia/arthralgia. There were 33% grade 2 and 17% grade 3 infections. With median follow-up of 5.2 years, four patients discontinued treatment due to lymphoma progression. Best overall response rate (ORR) was 61.2% [55.6% CR, 5.6% PR): 22.2% had stable disease and 16.7% had disease progression. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression free and overall survival (OS) were 73% and 87% at 36 months, respectively. R 2 can safely be combined with ixazomib for treatment-naïve iNHL patients.

The purpose of this study is to compare failure rates among different techniques of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair for the treatment of proximal ACL ruptures. Meta-analysis and systematic review were completed, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies from Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed published between June 2011 and June 2022 reporting outcomes of primary ACL repair on proximal tears with a minimum two-year follow-up were included. Primary ACL repair was divided into dynamic, static, and non-augmented repair. The primary outcome was failure rates, and the secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and anterior tibial stability (ATT). Eighteen studies on primary ACL repair were included, with a total of 614 patients (ages ranging from 6 to 65, 60% male). Only two studies were level 1 randomized controlled clinical trials. The static repair had a failure rate of 33 out of 261 (12.6%), non-augmented was 17 out of 179 (9.4%), and dynamic repair was 31 out of 174 (17.8%); no statistically significant difference was found comparing the failure rates (p = 0.090). PROs using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores had weighted averages of 91.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 89.6-93.8) and 94.7 (95% CI: 92.7-96.7), respectively. ATT had a weighted average of 1.668 mm (95% CI: 1.002-2.334). The primary findings of this paper include a 12.6% combined failure rate for primary proximal ACL repair with no significant difference in failure rate or PROs when accounting for the methodology of repair at a minimum two-year follow-up. It is important to note the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the heterogeneity of included studies, and the lack of long-term data. Despite these limitations, the findings of the current analysis suggest that primary repair may be a useful treatment option for indicated candidates with proximal ACL ruptures. Further long-term and higher-quality comparative studies on ACL reconstruction are warranted., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2024, Braithwaite et al.)