New article re: Rituxan outcomes

bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/early/2012/05/04/blood-2011-11-393975.abstract?ct

I tried to read this a few times but my brain went like :huh:.
So what exactly does it mean? Is it good or bad?
Worth a try, not worth a try and what makes it either way?

This is the important part:


In summary, 21-26% of adults and children with chronic ITP treated with standard-dose rituximab maintained a treatment-free response for at least five years without major toxicity. These results can inform clinical decision-making.

If you are in that 21-26%, you get a good remission. If not, you can possibly attain remission (counts over 150) for at least a year, or a partial remission (counts 50 to 150) for a period of time also.

It's okay to have a partial remission. This enables a person to be treatment free which is the goal. I thought it was worth a try when I used it.

Thanks for explaining it to me.
Would be great to be part of that small percentage with a long or even partial remission w/o further treatment.
What was the percentage of adults and children with chronic ITP that rituxan did not work for at all in this study or received less than a year in remission?
Im sorry Sandi I cannot remember if you said rituxan did or did not work for you?
I can find it if you dont care to repeat yourself.

It just says that the overall response rate was 57% and, I believe, of that 57%, 21 to 26% had a response that lasted at least 5 years. If a person has a complete response (counts over 150), they seemed to have a longer remission than those who had a partial response (50 to 150).

Yes, it did work for me. I had counts over 150 for about 10 months and then they began to drop. I treated again at the 14 month point and have had 7 years of remission since. I have a different situation though....was diagnosed with Lupus around that time and have been on Prednisone since. Treating Lupus and staying on Prednisone could be contributing to the remission.