Outcomes of Optimized over Standard Protocol of Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin for Severe Aplastic Anemia: A Single-Center Experience

27Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Previous reports showed that outcome of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) was not satisfactory as the first-line therapy for severe aplastic anemia (SAA). We explored a modifying schedule of administration of rATG. Design and Methods: Outcomes of a cohort of 175 SAA patients, including 51 patients administered with standard protocol (3.55 mg/kg/d for 5 days) and 124 cases with optimized protocol (1.97 mg/kg/d for 9 days) of rATG plus cyclosporine (CSA), were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Of all 175 patients, response rates at 3 and 6 months were 36.6% and 56.0%, respectively. 51 cases received standard protocol had poor responses at 3 (25.5%) and 6 months (41.2%). However, 124 patients received optimized protocol had better responses at 3 (41.1%, P = 0.14) and 6 (62.1%, P = 0.01). Higher incidences of infection (57.1% versus 37.9%, P = 0.02) and early mortality (17.9% versus 0.8%, P<0.001) occurred in patients received standard protocol compared with optimized protocol. The 5-year overall survival in favor of the optimized over standard rATG protocol (76.0% versus. 50.3%, P<0.001) was observed. By multivariate analysis, optimized protocol (RR = 2.21, P = 0.04), response at 3 months (RR = 10.31, P = 0.03) and shorter interval (<23 days) between diagnosis and initial dose of rATG (RR = 5.35, P = 0.002) were independent favorable predictors of overall survival. Conclusions: Optimized instead of standard rATG protocol in combination with CSA remained efficacious as a first-line immunosuppressive regimen for SAA. © 2013 Li et al.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, X., Shi, J., Ge, M., Shao, Y., Huang, J., Huang, Z., … Zheng, Y. (2013). Outcomes of Optimized over Standard Protocol of Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin for Severe Aplastic Anemia: A Single-Center Experience. PLoS ONE, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056648

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free