ABSTRACT
The number of studies and reviews conducted for the Carboxylesterase gene is limited in comparison with other enzymes. Carboxylesterase (CES) gene or human carboxylesterases (hCES) is a multigene protein belonging to the α/ß-hydrolase family. Over the last decade, two major carboxylesterases (CES1 and CES2), located at 16q13-q22.1 on human chromosome 16 have been extensively studied as important mediators in the metabolism of a wide range of substrates. hCES1 is the most widely expressed enzyme in humans, and it is found in the liver. In this review, details regarding CES1 substrates include both inducers (e.g. Rifampicin) and inhibitors (e.g. Enalapril, Diltiazem, Simvastatin) and different types of hCES1 polymorphisms (nsSNPs) such as rs2244613 and rs71647871. along with their effects on various CES1 substrates were documented. Few instances where the presence of nsSNPs exerted a positive influence on certain substrates which are hydrolyzed via hCES1, such as anti-platelets like Clopidogrel when co-administered with other medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were also recorded. Remdesivir, an ester prodrug is widely used for the treatment of COVID-19, being a CES substrate, it is a potent inhibitor of CES2 and is hydrolyzed via CES1. The details provided in this review could give a clear-cut idea or information that could be used for further studies regarding the safety and efficacy of CES1 substrate.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rituximab (Mabthera™) have been in use in India since 2000. A biosimilar molecule of rituximab (Reditux™) was approved in India in 2007. This retrospective audit was done to compare the efficacy and safety of Mabthera™ with Reditux™. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 223 adult diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who had received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone with rituximab chemotherapy. Tumor recurrence, survival and toxicities experienced during chemotherapy were obtained from the patient charts. The survival analysis was restricted to patients who received at least 4 cycles of the same brand. RESULTS: Of the 223 patients evaluated, 101 received Mabthera™, 72 received Reditux™. There were no differences in the infusional reaction rates, grades 3 and 4 neutropenia and oral mucositis between the two brands. Complete-remission (CR) rates were similar with Mabthera™ and Reditux™ (75% and 82%, respectively; P = 0.294). The progression free survival (PFS) rate at 5 years were 72% in Mabthera™ and 81% in Reditux™ (P = 0.382). The overall survival (OS) at 5 years were comparable in the two groups (66% in Mabthera™ and 76% in Reditux™; P = 0.264). CONCLUSION: We observed no significant differences in the toxicity, tumor response rates, PFS and OS between the two available brands of rituximab.
