| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Spierings, Julia, et al.
(författare)
-
A randomised, open-label trial to assess the optimal treatment strategy in early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis : The UPSIDE study protocol
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic, autoimmune connective tissue disease associated with high morbidity and mortality, especially in diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc). Currently, there are several treatments available in early dcSSc that aim to change the disease course, including immunosuppressive agents and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). HSCT has been adopted in international guidelines and is offered in current clinical care. However, optimal timing and patient selection for HSCT are still unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether HSCT should be positioned as upfront therapy or rescue treatment for patients refractory to immunosuppressive therapy. We hypothesise that upfront HSCT is superior and results in lower toxicity and lower long-term medical costs. Therefore, we propose this randomised trial aiming to determine the optimal treatment strategy for early dcSSc by comparing two strategies used in standard care: (1) upfront autologous HSCT versus (2) immunosuppressive therapy (intravenous cyclophosphamide pulse therapy followed by mycophenolate mofetil) with rescue HSCT in case of treatment failure. Methods and analysis The UPSIDE (UPfront autologous hematopoietic Stem cell transplantation vs Immunosuppressive medication in early DiffusE cutaneous systemic sclerosis) study is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, controlled trial. In total, 120 patients with early dcSSc will be randomised. The primary outcome is event-free survival at 2 years after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events, functional status and health-related quality of life. We will also evaluate changes in nailfold capillaroscopy pattern, pulmonary function, cardiac MR and high-resolution CT of the chest. Follow-up visits will be scheduled 3-monthly for 2 years and annually in the following 3 years. Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Dutch Central Committee on Research Concerning Human Subjects (NL72607.041.20). The results will be disseminated through patient associations and conventional scientific channels. Trial registration numbers NCT04464434; NL 8720.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Porwit, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Multiparameter flow cytometry in the evaluation of myelodysplasia : Analytical issues: Recommendations from the European LeukemiaNet/International Myelodysplastic Syndrome Flow Cytometry Working Group
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Cytometry Part B - Clinical Cytometry. - : Wiley. - 1552-4949 .- 1552-4957. ; 104:1, s. 27-50
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) is one of the essential ancillary methods in bone marrow (BM) investigation of patients with cytopenia and suspected myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). MFC can also be applied in the follow-up of MDS patients undergoing treatment. This document summarizes recommendations from the International/European Leukemia Net Working Group for Flow Cytometry in Myelodysplastic Syndromes (ELN iMDS Flow) on the analytical issues in MFC for the diagnostic work-up of MDS. Recommendations for the analysis of several BM cell subsets such as myeloid precursors, maturing granulocytic and monocytic components and erythropoiesis are given. A core set of 17 markers identified as independently related to a cytomorphologic diagnosis of myelodysplasia is suggested as mandatory for MFC evaluation of BM in a patient with cytopenia. A myeloid precursor cell (CD34+CD19−) count >3% should be considered immunophenotypically indicative of myelodysplasia. However, MFC results should always be evaluated as part of an integrated hematopathology work-up. Looking forward, several machine-learning-based analytical tools of interest should be applied in parallel to conventional analytical methods to investigate their usefulness in integrated diagnostics, risk stratification, and potentially even in the evaluation of response to therapy, based on MFC data. In addition, compiling large uniform datasets is desirable, as most of the machine-learning-based methods tend to perform better with larger numbers of investigated samples, especially in such a heterogeneous disease as MDS.
|
|
| 10. |
- Stojkov, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Guideline-based indicators for adult patients with myelodysplastic syndromes
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Blood advances. - : American Society of Hematology. - 2473-9537 .- 2473-9529. ; 4:16, s. 4029-4044
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) represent a heterogeneous group of hematological stem cell disorders with an increasing burden on health care systems. Evidence-based MDS guidelines and recommendations (G/Rs) are published but do not necessarily translate into better quality of care if adherence is not maintained in daily clinical practice. Guideline-based indicators (GBIs) are measurable elements for the standardized assessment of quality of care and, thus far, have not been developed for adult MDS patients. To this end, we screened relevant G/Rs published between 1999 and 2018 and aggregated all available information as candidate GBIs into a formalized handbook as the basis for the subsequent consensus rating procedure. An international multidisciplinary expert panel group (EPG) of acknowledged MDS experts (n = 17), health professionals (n = 7), and patient advocates (n = 5) was appointed. The EPG feedback rates for the first and second round were 82% (23 of 28) and 96% (26 of 27), respectively. A final set of 29 GBIs for the 3 domains of diagnosis (n = 14), therapy (n = 8), and provider/infrastructural characteristics (n = 7) achieved the predefined agreement score for selection (>70%). We identified shortcomings in standardization of patient-reported outcomes, toxicity, and geriatric assessments that need to be optimized in the future. Our GBIs represent the first comprehensive consensus on measurable elements addressing best practice performance, outcomes, and structural resources. They can be used as a standardized instrument with the goal of assessing, comparing, and fostering good quality of care within clinical development cycles in the daily care of adult MDS patients.
|
|
