Publications by authors named "Max Zortel"

3 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

No association of genetic variants in TLR4, TNF-α, IL10, IFN-γ, and IL37 in cytomegalovirus-positive renal allograft recipients with active CMV infection-Subanalysis of the prospective randomised VIPP study.

PLoS One 2021 16;16(4):e0246118. Epub 2021 Apr 16.

Department of Nephrology, University Clinic Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is amongst the most important factors complicating solid organ transplantation. In a large prospective randomized clinical trial, valganciclovir prophylaxis reduced the occurrence of CMV infection and disease compared with preemptive therapy in CMV-positive renal allograft recipients (VIPP study; NCT00372229). Here, we present a subanalysis of the VIPP study, investigating single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in immune-response-related genes and their association with active CMV infection, CMV disease, graft loss or death, rejection, infections, and leukopenia.

Methods: Based on literature research ten SNPs were analyzed for TLR4, three for IFN-γ, six for IL10, nine for IL37, and two for TNF-α. An asymptotic independence test (Cochran-Armitage trend test) was used to examine associations between SNPs and the occurrence of CMV infection or other negative outcomes. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was performed.

Results: SNPs were analyzed on 116 blood samples. No associations were found between the analyzed SNPs and the occurrence of CMV infection, rejection and leukopenia in all patients. For IL37 rs2723186, an association with CMV disease (p = 0.0499), for IL10 rs1800872, with graft loss or death (p = 0.0207) and for IL10 rs3024496, with infections (p = 0.0258) was observed in all patients, however did not hold true after correction for multiple testing.

Conclusion: The study did not reveal significant associations between the analyzed SNPs and the occurrence of negative outcomes in CMV-positive renal transplant recipients after correction for multiple testing. The results of this association analysis may be of use in guiding future research efforts.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246118PLOS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8051780PMC
April 2021

Efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis versus factor VIII prophylaxis for treatment of hemophilia A without inhibitors: network meta-analysis and sub-group analyses of the intra-patient comparison of the HAVEN 3 trial.

Curr Med Res Opin 2019 12 13;35(12):2079-2087. Epub 2019 Aug 13.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.

To compare the efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis with that of factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors using two approaches: network meta-analyses (NMA) and additional sub-group analyses from the HAVEN 3 trial. The NMA used data from trials identified using a systematic literature review and compared bleed rates in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and patients receiving FVIII prophylaxis using a Bayesian, random effects generalized linear model with log link Poisson likelihood. Additional sub-groups of the HAVEN 3 trial included here were defined as patients whose dose-taking behavior met either European label or World Federation of Hemophilia guidelines. A negative binomial regression model was used to conduct an intra-patient comparison of bleed rates within the sub-groups, during treatment with FVIII prophylaxis before entering HAVEN 3 and treatment with emicizumab prophylaxis during HAVEN 3. Four studies were included in the base-case NMA. Evidence showed that the total treated bleed rate was lower with emicizumab prophylaxis compared with FVIII prophylaxis (rate ratio [RR] = 0.36 [95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.13-0.95]). Similar associations were observed in sensitivity analyses. The additional HAVEN 3 analyses also showed lower rates of treated bleeds with emicizumab prophylaxis than with FVIII prophylaxis (RRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.380 [0.186-0.790] and 0.472 [0.258-0.866] in two sub-groups). These results confirm the original HAVEN 3 intra-patient comparison findings. Combined findings from NMA and additional sub-group analyses of HAVEN 3 support the superiority of emicizumab prophylaxis over FVIII prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2019.1649378DOI Listing
December 2019