Effectiveness of combined plasma cell therapy and costimulation blockade based desensitization regimen in heart transplant candidates.

BACKGROUND: Desensitization is one of the strategies to reduce antibodies and facilitate heart transplantation in highly sensitized patients. We describe our center's desensitization experience with combination of plasma cell (PC) depletion therapy (with proteasome inhibitor or daratumumab) and costimulation blockade (with belatacept). METHODS: We reviewed five highly sensitized patients who underwent desensitization therapy with plasma cell depletion and costimulation blockade. We evaluated the response to therapy by measuring the changes in cPRA, average MFI, and number of positive beads > 5000MFI. RESULTS: Five patients, mean age of 56 (37-66) years with average cPRA of 98% at 5000 MFI underwent desensitization therapy. After desensitization, mean cPRA decreased from 98% to 70% (p = .09), average number of beads > 5000 MFI decreased from 59 to 37 (p = .15), and average MFI of beads > 5000 MFI decreased from 16713 to 13074 (p = .26). CONCLUSION: Combined PC depletion and CoB could be a reasonable strategy for sustained reduction in antibodies in highly sensitized patients being listed for heart transplantation.

Safety and Efficacy of Periprocedural Bridging With Cangrelor Versus Eptifibatide.

ABSTRACT: Patients with percutaneous coronary interventions undergoing procedures often require interruptions in their dual antiplatelet therapy. Periprocedural bridging is considered for patients at high thrombotic risk using intravenous cangrelor, a reversible P2Y12 inhibitor with a short half-life, or eptifibatide, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, with a slightly longer half-life but less costly alternative. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of cangrelor compared with eptifibatide when used in a periprocedural setting. The primary outcome of this retrospective cohort study was the incidence of bleeding events defined by the global use of strategies to open occluded coronary arteries criteria, and the secondary outcomes include the transfusion requirements, inpatient major cardiac adverse events, and cost savings per patient. A total of 75 patients were included who were bridged to procedures (cangrelor, n = 50; eptifibatide, n = 25). There were no significant differences in overall bleeding events defined by global use of strategies to open occluded coronary arteries criteria: mild bleeding [8% (n= 4) vs. 8% (n= 2); P = 0.68], moderate bleeding [28% (n = 14) vs. 48% (n = 12); P = 0.07), and severe bleeding [8% (n = 4) vs. 8% (n = 2); P = 0.25] between cangrelor and eptifibatide. The composite inpatient major cardiac adverse events were also similar between cangrelor and eptifibatide [10% (n = 10) vs. 8% (n = 8); P = 0.78]. The average cost savings per each cangrelor patient on the equivalent duration of eptifibatide was calculated out to be $5824 per patient. Cangrelor and eptifibatide were similar in terms of safety and efficacy when used as a bridge in patients with recent coronary stents, but considerable cost savings could be made if cangrelor was substituted for by eptifibatide in select patients. Further studies are needed to determine its applicability specifically in patients at high thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk.