Immunoadsorption for systemic lupus erythematosus

Clinical efficacy comparison of HA280 and DNA280 immunoadsorption column in treating systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of HA280 and DNA280 immunoadsorption (IA) column in treating systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and provide the basis for seeking cost-effective solution for SLE.

METHODS

Fifty-seven severe SLE patients receiving IA treatment from January 2007 to December 2013 were selected. They were divided into HA280 group (31 cases) and DNA280 group (26 cases), which used HA280 and DNA280 IA column, respectively. The efficacy, adverse reactions, and hospitalization cost of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Both two groups could effectively reduce the SLE-associated antibodies, immunoglobulins, complement levels, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, and 24-h urine protein levels (P < 0.05). The efficiency and incidence of adverse reactions of two groups were similar (P > 0.05), while the hospitalization cost of HA280 group was significantly less than that of DNA280 group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Application of HA280 IA column in IA treatment is relatively the most cost-effective adjuvant therapy to severe SLE.

Double filtration plasmapheresis in different diseases in Thailand

Double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) was applied to the treatment of two different categories from 100 cases that had been collected over a 5 year period (2007-2011). These categories were allocated into groups by size of toxic substances, which were classified as two different kinds of diseases. Group I comprised diseases that were caused by alloimmunity in transplantation, autoimmune diseases, complicated nephrotic syndrome, pure red cell aplasia, and toxemia of pregnancy. This group was treated with a plasma separator (plasmaflow-05, Asahi Kasei) and plasma fractionators, EC-20W. The second group, which included hyperviscosity syndrome, was treated by the same plasma separator, but with different plasma fractionators using EC-40W. This group included diabetes nephropathy, hyperlipidemia, peripheral arterial diseases, and neurosensory hearing loss. Both groups used 1.5 plasma volumes in each treatment for three sessions in two consecutive weeks. The result of treatment in group I showed that plasma immunoglobulin G (IgG) was decreased substantially by 66% in either transplant or lupus nephritis patients after the third session. In the second group, IgM, fibrinogen, and lipid markedly responded to the treatment. Two diabetes nephropathy patients showed stable renal function for more than 12 months. Peripheral arterial disease was shown to benefit from significantly decreasing fibrinogen and IgM, which resulted in clinical tissue oxygenation. Neither bleeding diathesis nor membrane anaphylaxis were reported from the treatment. In summary, apheresis patients were shown to benefit in hypersensitized and hyperviscosity syndrome.

Current state of evidence on 'off-label' therapeutic options for systemic lupus erythematosus, including biological immunosuppressive agents, in Germany, Austria and Switzerland--a consensus report

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) can be a severe and potentially life-threatening disease that often represents a therapeutic challenge because of its heterogeneous organ manifestations. Only glucocorticoids, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide and very recently belimumab have been approved for SLE therapy in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Dependence on glucocorticoids and resistance to the approved therapeutic agents, as well as substantial toxicity, are frequent. Therefore, treatment considerations will include 'off-label' use of medication approved for other indications. In this consensus approach, an effort has been undertaken to delineate the limits of the current evidence on therapeutic options for SLE organ disease, and to agree on common practice. This has been based on the best available evidence obtained by a rigorous literature review and the authors' own experience with available drugs derived under very similar health care conditions. Preparation of this consensus document included an initial meeting to agree upon the core agenda, a systematic literature review with subsequent formulation of a consensus and determination of the evidence level followed by collecting the level of agreement from the panel members. In addition to overarching principles, the panel have focused on the treatment of major SLE organ manifestations (lupus nephritis, arthritis, lung disease, neuropsychiatric and haematological manifestations, antiphospholipid syndrome and serositis). This consensus report is intended to support clinicians involved in the care of patients with difficult courses of SLE not responding to standard therapies by providing up-to-date information on the best available evidence.