Abstract:American Journal of HematologyVolume 98, Issue 5 p. E106-E109 CORRESPONDENCEFree Access Ruxolitinib combined with dexamethasone in adult patients with newly diagnosed Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis: A single-center pilot trial De Zhou, De Zhou orcid.org/0000-0002-3698-2750 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXianbo Huang, Xianbo Huang Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorMixue Xie, Mixue Xie Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorLixia Zhu, Lixia Zhu Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXin Huang, Xin Huang Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXueying Li, Xueying Li orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-1984 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiudi Yang, Xiudi Yang Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorLi Li, Li Li Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJingjing Zhu, Jingjing Zhu Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiaolong Zheng, Xiaolong Zheng Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJianai Sun, Jianai Sun Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorShuqi Zhao, Shuqi Zhao Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWenjuan Yu, Wenjuan Yu Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWanzhuo Xie, Wanzhuo Xie orcid.org/0000-0002-0966-5581 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorHongyan Tong, Hongyan Tong orcid.org/0000-0001-5603-4160 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJie Jin, Corresponding Author Jie Jin [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-8166-9915 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Correspondence Jie Jin, Honghu Zhu and Xiujin Ye, Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No.79 Qingchun Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou City 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorHonghu Zhu, Corresponding Author Honghu Zhu [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-2343-0436 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Correspondence Jie Jin, Honghu Zhu and Xiujin Ye, Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No.79 Qingchun Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou City 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorXiujin Ye, Corresponding Author Xiujin Ye [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-4553-2751 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Correspondence Jie Jin, Honghu Zhu and Xiujin Ye, Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No.79 Qingchun Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou City 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. Email: [email protected], zhuhhd[email protected], [email protected]Search for more papers by this author De Zhou, De Zhou orcid.org/0000-0002-3698-2750 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXianbo Huang, Xianbo Huang Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorMixue Xie, Mixue Xie Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorLixia Zhu, Lixia Zhu Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXin Huang, Xin Huang Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXueying Li, Xueying Li orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-1984 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiudi Yang, Xiudi Yang Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorLi Li, Li Li Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJingjing Zhu, Jingjing Zhu Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiaolong Zheng, Xiaolong Zheng Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJianai Sun, Jianai Sun Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorShuqi Zhao, Shuqi Zhao Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWenjuan Yu, Wenjuan Yu Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWanzhuo Xie, Wanzhuo Xie orcid.org/0000-0002-0966-5581 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorHongyan Tong, Hongyan Tong orcid.org/0000-0001-5603-4160 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJie Jin, Corresponding Author Jie Jin [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-8166-9915 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Correspondence Jie Jin, Honghu Zhu and Xiujin Ye, Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No.79 Qingchun Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou City 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorHonghu Zhu, Corresponding Author Honghu Zhu [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-2343-0436 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Correspondence Jie Jin, Honghu Zhu and Xiujin Ye, Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No.79 Qingchun Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou City 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorXiujin Ye, Corresponding Author Xiujin Ye [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-4553-2751 Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Hematopoietic Malignancy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China Correspondence Jie Jin, Honghu Zhu and Xiujin Ye, Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No.79 Qingchun Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou City 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 15 February 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26877 De Zhou, Xianbo Huang and Mixue Xie contributed equally to the work. AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL To the Editor: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a rapidly progressive and life-threatening disease that can be classified into primary and secondary HLH, most adult patients have secondary HLH, and the main secondary causes are infection, rheumatic disease, and malignancy. The current first-line treatment regimen such as HLH-94 or HLH-2004 are largely extrapolated from pediatric HLH; however, the prognosis of adult HLH is worse than that of children.1, 2 In addition to its unsatisfactory efficacy, the toxicity of HLH-94/HLH-2004 regimens has resulted in relatively high treatment-related mortality,2 Therefore, more efficient and less toxic induction therapy is needed in secondary HLH. Excessive production of cytokines contributes to the pathogenesis of HLH. Recent studies have indicated that ruxolitinib, a small-molecule inhibitor of Janus kinases (JAKs), which are essential for cytokine signaling, may be therapeutic in HLH. A prospective study demonstrated that ruxolitinib is effective and safe in adults with secondary HLH,3 and all patients responded to ruxolitinib and survived for more than two months. Moreover, Lauren K. Meyer et al.4 demonstrated that hypercytokinemia of HLH reduces the apoptotic potential of CD8+ T cells, leading to relative dexamethasone resistance, and this apoptotic potential is restored both in vitro and in vivo upon exposure to ruxolitinib. Based on the above studies, we performed this single-center, pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Ru-D in adult patients with secondary HLH at the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University. Patients enrolled in this study met the following criteria: (1) fulfilled at least five of the eight HLH-2004 criteria for HLH; (2) male or female, older than 18 years; (3) no prior chemotherapy treatment for HLH; and (4) signed an informed consent form before participating in the study. Patients who met any one of the following were ineligible: central nervous system involvement, presence of a malignancy, HIV infection, and pregnant women. Patients in this study underwent an 8-week period of treatment. The Ru-D regimen consists of ruxolitinib (15 mg twice daily for 8 weeks) and dexamethasone (initially 10 mg/m2 for 2 weeks followed by 5 mg/m2 for 2 weeks, 2.5 mg/m2 for 2 weeks, 1.25 mg/m2 for one week, and one week of tapering). For follow-up and salvage treatment, we employed the following criteria: (1) If patients did not respond to the Ru-D regimen after 7 days or relapsed at any point during treatment, they entered a rescue regimen such as HLH-94 or doxorubicin-etoposide-methylprednisolone (DEP); (2) If patients were diagnosed with lymphoma after enrollment, chemotherapy was immediately started; (3) After 8 weeks of treatment, if no recurrence and no HLH-related gene mutations were detected, treatment was discontinued, and these patients entered the follow-up stage; (4) Allo-HSCT was performed in patients who met the criteria for allo-HSCT. The primary endpoint was the overall response during treatment with the Ru-D regimen in this study. The overall response rate (ORR) included the percentage of patients with a complete response (CR), a partial response (PR), or an improvement in the measures of HLH. Efficacy was evaluated 7, 14, 28, and 56 days after initiating Ru-D therapy. The efficacy of treatment was assessed according to the evaluation criteria proposed by Franco et al5 Secondary endpoints were safety and tolerability, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and changes in biomarkers between baseline and post-treatment. Adverse events in this study were assessed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0 (CTCAE 5.0). From April 1, 2021 to May 31, 2021, a total of 8 patients were enrolled in this study. The main clinical characteristics of the patients enrolled are summarized in Table 1. All the patients were adults, and the median age was 48 years (range 23–77 years). Among the 8 patients, five were eventually diagnosed with lymphoma-associated HLH (LAHS) after enrollment. The remaining three included one bacterial infection-associated HLH and two cases of Epstein–Barr virus-associated HLH (EVB-HLH). Serum EBV-DNA copies were positive in seven patients (102–106 copies/mL) and were negative in the patient who was diagnosed with bacterial infection-associated HLH. The eight patients had ECOG performance status scores of 2 to 4, and most patients were steady at 3 or 4. TABLE 1. Baseline characteristics and response of enrolled patients. Clinical features Patient 1 Patient 2 Patient 3 Patient 4 Patient 5 Patient 6 Patient 7 Patient 8 Age(years) 37 39 54 69 76 77 42 23 Gender Female Male Male Female Female Female Female Male ECOG score 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 Previous therapies IVIG, antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroid IVIG, antibiotics, corticosteroid Antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroid Antibiotics, corticosteroid Antibiotics Antibiotics Antibiotics, corticosteroid Antibiotics, corticosteroid Etiology NKTCL Bacterial infections DLBCL PTCL EBV-HLH PTCL EBV-HLH NKTCL Fever Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Splenomegaly Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Absolute neutrophil count (×109/L) 1.3 12.07 4.76 0.8 1.7 0.5 0.9 0.6 Hemoglobin concentration (g/L) 77 113 121 82 89 124 81 92 Absolute platelet count (×109/L) 32 282 81 89 67 23 31 3 Triglyceride concentration (mmol/L) 3.14 1.94 2.03 1.06 1.25 3.38 2.31 4.43 Fibrinogen concentration (g/L) 1.05 3.67 6.78 0.96 1.48 1.8 0.5 1.28 Ferritin concentration (μg/L) 1151.8 19176.6 4222.6 2299.4 32847.2 20241.4 5156.3 >40 000 Hemophagocytosis in bone marrow Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural killer cell activity (%) 21.05 6.95 14.84 — — — 16.44 14.48 Natural killer cell CD107a (%) 10.44 0.99 3.49 — — — 4.56 1.52 Soluble CD25 (pg/mL) 58 240 20 917 78 770 — — — 13 437 43 403 HLH-2004 criteria 7/8 6/8 5/8 5/8a 5/8a 5/8a 7/8 8/8 EBV-DNA (copies/mL) 3.29 × 106 Negative 9.20 × 102 2.58 × 103 1.23 × 103 9.34 × 102 3.31 × 103 9.47 × 106 Treatment days 26 56 14 52 56 20 56 2 Best Response PR CR Improvement in measures of HLH CR CR PR CR NR Duration of Response (days) 26 269 141 52 244 20 234 — Survival No Yes No No Yes No Yes No Survival time (days) 175 450 141 332 425 20 415 2 Reason for death Progression of lymphoma — CRPA infection Relapse of lymphoma — Bronchiectasis with massive hemoptysis — Progression of HLH Note: Normal reference range: Ferritin concentration < 500 μg/L, Triglyceride concentration 1.70 < mmol/L, Fibrinogen concentration 2.0 ~ 4.0 g/L, soluble CD25 ≤ 6400 pg/mL, soluble CD163 88 ~ 902 pg/mL, Natural killer cell activity≥15.11%, Natural killer cell CD107a ≥ 10%. Abbreviations: CR, complete response; CRPA, carbapenem-resistant pseudomonas aeruginosa; DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; EBV, Epstein–Barr virus; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; NKTCL, NK/T-cell lymphoma; NR, no response; PTCL, peripheral T-cell lymphoma. a Natural killer cell activity and Soluble CD25 were not tested. Patients were followed up until June 30, 2022 or until death, with none lost to follow-up. Table 1 also shows the response outcomes in detail. The median follow-up time was 8.5 (range, 0.1–15.0) months. The ORR to the Ru-D regime was 87.5% (7/8), with 50% (4/8) showing CR, 25.0% (2/8) PR, and 12.5% (1/8) improvement in measures of HLH, 12.5% (1/8) no response (NR). Among the LAHS patients, one patient (20%) achieved CR, two patients (40%) achieved PR, and 1 patient (20%) achieved improvement in measures of HLH, and 1 patient (20%) NR. All the 3 non-LAHS patients achieved CR, and no recurrence has occurred so far. The OS was 75% (6/8) at 2 months, 50% (4/8) at 6 months and 37.5% at 12 months. Although the overall mortality rate was 62.5% (5/8), there was only one death directly related to HLH. The Ru-D treatment in our study was well tolerated, with no toxicities leading to dose reduction or discontinuation of treatment observed. Ruxolitinib has been reported to have a risk of hematological toxicity, which is difficult to evaluate because cytopenia is also the major clinical feature of HLH. We found that only 1 patient (12.5%) had grade III anemia during Ru-D therapy. Four additional patients (50%) developed grade II hematologic toxicity. Regarding infections, pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) occurred in Patient 7 after 56 days of Ru-D treatment and was successfully cured by trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Patient 6 had a history of baseline bronchiectasis and chronic pulmonary infection with PA before receiving Ru-D. During treatment, this patient suffered aggravation of pulmonary infection and presented with cough, sputum, and inflammatory exudation changes on lung imaging and positive sputum culture for PA, while the body temperature remained within normal limits. She was treated with cefoperazone-sulbactam against PA but had poor control of the infection, developed massive hemoptysis on Day 19, and died in 48 hours. For other patients, no unusual infections were observed. Secondary HLH in adults is a major clinical challenge due to its rapid progression and high mortality. The current first-line treatment strategies are the HLH-94 and HLH-2004 regimens, the ORR was approximately 70%. There were 8 patients enrolled in our study, whose ORR was 87.5%, which is higher than the patients treated with the HLH-94/HLH-2004 regimen. The survival of adult patients with HLH is poor, in a large, multicenter, retrospective study, the median OS in patients with malignancy-associated HLH was 2.8 months and for those with non-malignancy-associated HLH was 10.7 months.3 We also have retrospectively analyzed 205 patients seen between January 2011 and December 2015 in our hospital. The median OS was only 1.8 months, and most of these patients received HLH-94 as initial treatment.6 In this study, the median OS was 4.7 months in patients with LAHS, and all the patients with non-LAHS are now alive with a CR status for more than one year. In contrast to the above studies, this study demonstrated better short-term survival in both malignancy-associated HLH and non-malignancy-associated HLH patients. In our study, Ru-D regimen shows that it is an efficient and safe initial treatment for patients with LAHS, the rapid control of cytokine-driven inflammation gives these patients opportunity to confirm the diagnosis of lymphoma and bridge to chemotherapy. Although Ru-D regimen may improve short-term survival in LAHS patients, their long-term survival remains poor. More effective anti-lymphoma strategies may be the fundamental way to improve the prognosis of these patients. Overall, the Ru-P regimen was well tolerated in this study. Regarding hematologic toxicity, only 1 patient (25%) developed grade III hematologic toxicity. The peripheral blood cell counts of patients who responded gradually improved during Ru-D treatment. However, it should be noted that during Ru-D treatment, we found 2 cases of grade III or higher infection-related AE. Therefore, during Ru-D treatment, we should be aware of the aggravation of the original infection and new opportunistic infections. More experience is needed to assess the need for prophylactic anti-infective therapy in these patients. In summary, this study was a preliminary attempt at giving the Ru-D regimen to newly diagnosed adult HLH patients. Although the sample size was small and the follow-up time was relatively short. Given the rarity and high short-term mortality of adult HLH, the results of this study have some relevance indeed. Ru-D showed a high ORR and good safety and has the potential to become a first-line treatment for HLH in adults. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS De Zhou, Honghu Zhu, Jie Jin, Xiujin Ye, and Xianbo Huang designed the study; De Zhou, Xianbo Huang, and Mixue Xie analyzed the results; De Zhou and Xianbo Huang wrote the paper; De Zhou, Xiu jin Ye, Xianbo Huang, and Xueying Li performed the research; Xin Huang, Xiudi Yang, Li LI, Lixia Zhu, Jingjing Zhu, Xiaolong Zheng, Jianai Sun, Shuqi Zhao, Wenjuan Yu, Wanzhuo Xie, and Hongyan Tong collected the data and reviewed the paper. De Zhou, Xiujin Ye, and Xianbo Huang obtained funding. Honghu Zhu and Jie Jin provided administrative support. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank the patients and their families, and medical staff who participated in this study. This work was supported by grants from Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LGF22H160040 and LZ22H080002), and Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81900152). The funder of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare no conflict of interest. Open Research DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. REFERENCES 1Schram AM, Comstock P, Campo M, et al. Haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in adults: a multicentre case series over 7 years. Br J Haematol. 2016; 172: 412- 419. 2Henter JI, Samuelsson-Horne A, Arico M, et al. Treatment of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis with HLH-94 immunochemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation. Blood. 2002; 100: 2367- 2373. 3Ahmed A, Merrill SA, Alsawah F, et al. Ruxolitinib in adult patients with secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis: an open-label, single-Centre, pilot trial. Lancet Haematol. 2019; 6(12):e630-e637. 4Meyer LK, Verbist KC, Albeituni S, et al. JAK/STAT pathway inhibition sensitizes CD8 T cells to dexamethasone-induced apoptosis in hyperinflammation. Blood. 2020; 136(6): 657- 668. 5Locatelli F, Jordan MB, Allen C, et al. Emapalumab in children with primary Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382(19): 1811- 1822. 6Zhou M, Li L, Zhang Q, et al. Clinical features and outcomes in secondary adult hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Int J Med. 2018; 111: 23- 31. Volume98, Issue5May 2023Pages E106-E109 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Abstract:Journal of Extracellular VesiclesVolume 6, Issue 1 1396823 Editorial of the ISEV boardOpen Access Updating the MISEV minimal requirements for extracellular vesicle studies: building bridges to reproducibility Kenneth W. Witwer, Kenneth W. Witwer kwitwer1@jhmi.edu orcid.org/0000-0003-1664-4233 Departments of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology and Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USASearch for more papers by this authorCarolina Soekmadji, Carolina Soekmadji orcid.org/0000-0002-6920-6627 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew F. Hill, Andrew F. Hill orcid.org/0000-0001-5581-2354 Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorMarca H. Wauben, Marca H. Wauben Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorEdit I. Buzás, Edit I. Buzás Department of Genetics, Cell- and Immunobiology, Semmelweis University and MTA-SE Immunoproteogenomics Extracellular Vesicle Research Group, Budapest, HungarySearch for more papers by this authorDolores Di Vizio, Dolores Di Vizio Division of Cancer Biology and Therapeutics, Departments of Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJuan M. Falcon-Perez, Juan M. Falcon-Perez Exosomes Laboratory & Metabolomics Platform, CIC bioGUNE, CIBERehd, Derio, Spain IKERBASQUE Research Science Foundation, Bilbao, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorChris Gardiner, Chris Gardiner Research Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFred Hochberg, Fred Hochberg Neurosurgery, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA The Scintillon Institute, La Jolla, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorIgor V. Kurochkin, Igor V. Kurochkin Central Research Laboratories, Sysmex Co, Kobe, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorJan Lötvall, Jan Lötvall orcid.org/0000-0001-9195-9249 Codiak BioSciences, Cambridge, MA, USA Krefting Research Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorSuresh Mathivanan, Suresh Mathivanan Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorRienk Nieuwland, Rienk Nieuwland Department of Clinical Chemistry and Vesicle Observation Centre, Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorSusmita Sahoo, Susmita Sahoo Department of Medicine, Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USASearch for more papers by this authorHidetoshi Tahara, Hidetoshi Tahara Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorAna Claudia Torrecilhas, Ana Claudia Torrecilhas Departamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, UNIFESP, Diadema, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorAlissa M. Weaver, Alissa M. Weaver orcid.org/0000-0002-4096-8636 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USASearch for more papers by this authorHang Yin, Hang Yin Center of Basic Molecular Science, Department of Chemistry, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USASearch for more papers by this authorLei Zheng, Lei Zheng Department of Laboratory Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYong Song Gho, Yong Song Gho Department of Life Sciences, POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology), Pohang, South KoreaSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Quesenberry, Peter Quesenberry Brown Medical School, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USASearch for more papers by this authorClotilde Théry, Clotilde Théry clotilde.thery@curie.fr Institut Curie, INSERM U932, PSL Research University, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this author Kenneth W. Witwer, Kenneth W. Witwer kwitwer1@jhmi.edu orcid.org/0000-0003-1664-4233 Departments of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology and Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USASearch for more papers by this authorCarolina Soekmadji, Carolina Soekmadji orcid.org/0000-0002-6920-6627 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew F. Hill, Andrew F. Hill orcid.org/0000-0001-5581-2354 Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorMarca H. Wauben, Marca H. Wauben Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorEdit I. Buzás, Edit I. Buzás Department of Genetics, Cell- and Immunobiology, Semmelweis University and MTA-SE Immunoproteogenomics Extracellular Vesicle Research Group, Budapest, HungarySearch for more papers by this authorDolores Di Vizio, Dolores Di Vizio Division of Cancer Biology and Therapeutics, Departments of Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJuan M. Falcon-Perez, Juan M. Falcon-Perez Exosomes Laboratory & Metabolomics Platform, CIC bioGUNE, CIBERehd, Derio, Spain IKERBASQUE Research Science Foundation, Bilbao, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorChris Gardiner, Chris Gardiner Research Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFred Hochberg, Fred Hochberg Neurosurgery, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA The Scintillon Institute, La Jolla, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorIgor V. Kurochkin, Igor V. Kurochkin Central Research Laboratories, Sysmex Co, Kobe, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorJan Lötvall, Jan Lötvall orcid.org/0000-0001-9195-9249 Codiak BioSciences, Cambridge, MA, USA Krefting Research Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorSuresh Mathivanan, Suresh Mathivanan Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorRienk Nieuwland, Rienk Nieuwland Department of Clinical Chemistry and Vesicle Observation Centre, Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorSusmita Sahoo, Susmita Sahoo Department of Medicine, Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USASearch for more papers by this authorHidetoshi Tahara, Hidetoshi Tahara Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorAna Claudia Torrecilhas, Ana Claudia Torrecilhas Departamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, UNIFESP, Diadema, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorAlissa M. Weaver, Alissa M. Weaver orcid.org/0000-0002-4096-8636 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USASearch for more papers by this authorHang Yin, Hang Yin Center of Basic Molecular Science, Department of Chemistry, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USASearch for more papers by this authorLei Zheng, Lei Zheng Department of Laboratory Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYong Song Gho, Yong Song Gho Department of Life Sciences, POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology), Pohang, South KoreaSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Quesenberry, Peter Quesenberry Brown Medical School, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USASearch for more papers by this authorClotilde Théry, Clotilde Théry clotilde.thery@curie.fr Institut Curie, INSERM U932, PSL Research University, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 December 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/20013078.2017.1396823Citations: 110AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat An editorial describing "minimal experimental requirements for definition of extracellular vesicles (EVs)", or more simply "minimal information for studies of EVs (MISEV)" was published in the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles in late 2014 [1]. Similar to guidelines in other scientific fields [2-4], "MISEV2014", as we will call it here, provided recommendations on experimental methods and minimal information in reporting. Specifically, three key areas were addressed: EV isolation/purification, EV characterization and EV functional studies (see Text Box 1). Table Text Box 1. Major recommendations of MISEV2014. 1. EV separation/isolation a) There is no single optimal isolation method, so choose based on the downstream applications and scientific question b) Report all details of the method(s) for reproducibility 2. EV characterization a) General characterization. Show: i. At least three positive protein markers of EVs, including at least one -transmembrane/lipid-bound protein -cytosolic protein ii. At least one negative protein marker b) Characterization of single vesicles: use two different but complementary techniques, for example: i. electron or atomic force microscopy (and show both close-up and wide-field) ii. single particle tracking 3. Functional studies should include: a) Dose–response studies b) Process controls to rule out influence of serum components/other possible contaminants c-i.) Density gradients to show activity is intrinsic to EVs, not just associated or c-ii.) EV depletion to remove activity or c-iii.) EV/cell labelling (e.g., fluorescent labelling, with careful interpretation) Brief review of MISEV2014 On separation of EVs (also referred to as isolation, purification or concentration), MISEV2014 acknowledged that there is no consensus on an "optimal" method, such as ultracentrifugation, size exclusion or immunoaffinity. Instead, selection of a method should be guided by the relevant scientific question and downstream applications, and all details of the method should be provided to ensure reproducibility. MISEV2014 recommended that EVcharacterization be performed at both the population and single vesicle levels. For the former, both positive and negative protein marker characterization was endorsed, following four categories of proteins: (1) transmembrane or lipid-bound EV protein, (2) EV cytosolic protein, (3) intracellular but not associated with plasma membrane or endosomes (i.e. relatively less abundant in exosomal EVs than in cells) and (4) extracellular but not typically EV-associated proteins. Several examples of proteins in each category were provided. For characterization of single vesicles, as a means to assess population heterogeneity, MISEV2014 called for the use of at least two different but complementary technologies. For example, electron or atomic force microscopy could be paired with one of the single particle tracking methods. Furthermore, close-up images should be accompanied by wide-field views to allow assessment of heterogeneity. For EV functional studies, MISEV2014 stated that quantitation of EVs and their activity should include dose–response studies. Process controls should be included, since contaminants might contribute activity. Use of density gradients was encouraged to show that any observed activity is intrinsic to EVs and not to closely associated, commonly co-purifying particles; alternatively, this activity should be depletable, e.g. by immunodepletion of EVs. Labelling studies were also recommended. Rigour vs flexibility MISEV2014 reflected a field in flux, with a need for standard development tempered by remaining uncertainties. Indeed, this is still the case. For this reason, the protein markers for general characterization that were listed in a table in the manuscript were presented as non-exclusive examples only, and no specific antibodies were recommended. Our understanding of categories such as "EV proteins" and "non-EV proteins" is still evolving, and these categories might better be labelled "EV-enriched" and "EV-depleted". Some described non-EV proteins have been found in vesicles and have biological effects. Instead of an inflexible approach, MISEV2014 urged that markers from different categories be used, and that all antibody details and sample manipulations be reported to ensure interpretability and reproducibility. What if scientists could not follow all guidelines? In this case, they were encouraged to explain why certain experiments could not be performed. The example of low-abundance, precious samples was given explicitly. That is, guidance was accompanied by acknowledgement of the realities of the field. Utility of MISEV2014 The value of MISEV2014 is supported by a key finding of van Deun and Hendrix [5] reporting on the release of the EV-TRACK knowledgebase [6]. The EV-TRACK project includes an "EV-METRIC" that can be calculated to gauge the quality of reporting of each EV-related paper. van Deun et al. found that, in the year after the release of MISEV2014, the EV-METRICs of publications overall did not improve significantly. However, publications that cited MISEV2014 had significantly higher EV-METRICs. Those who engaged with MISEV2014, then, seemed to be better equipped to report important experimental parameters. Of course, it takes time for laboratories to incorporate new methodologies and then go on to publish a paper based on them. Laboratories that were unaware of the MISEV effort before its publication may simply not have had time to incorporate the guidelines by the time our survey took place. How far has MISEV reached? Citations of MISEV2014 reached 400 in September 2017, according to Google Scholar. However, this number represents only a minority of EV-related publications. While MISEV is likely followed in many publications that do not cite it, and citations per se are certainly not the goal of standardization efforts, the MISEV2014 citation rate nonetheless suggests that broader dissemination and researcher involvement could be achieved. Opportunities and pulse-checking The ISEV community now faces choices to extend the value and reach of MISEV2014. Whereas MISEV2014 was produced by the ISEV Board of Directors as the elected representatives of ISEV – at that time including the three editors-in-chief of the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles – future developments will benefit from the input of a much broader authorship. Drawing on more expertise will allow a future iteration or offshoot of MISEV2014 to offer more detailed guidance in more areas, and/or to reflect greater consensus. A first step in this direction was to take the pulse of the community on where we came from (MISEV2014) and where we are going with standardization. 2016 MISEV survey: obtaining guidance from the experts A 14-question MISEV survey was released to the ISEV membership on 24 October 2016. See Text Box 2 for an outline of the survey. A total of 187 responses were submitted: 81% (152) within a 24-hour period, and almost 95% within 5 days. The survey was closed in early 2017. Table Text Box 2. ISEV 2016 MISEV survey. 1. I have read the MISEV minimal requirements paper (Lötvall et al., JEV, 2014) (yes/no) 2. I have published on extracellular vesicles in 2015 and/or 2016 (yes/no) 3. In your recent EV publication(s), did you (follow/cite/not follow or cite) MISEV? 4. Do you think that minimal reporting and/or methodologic requirements are important for the EV field? (yes/no) 5. Which of the following most closely summarizes your opinion on minimal requirements in the EV field? ° Minimal requirements are important, and I support MISEV ° Minimal requirements are important, and MISEV does not go far enough to uphold standards ° Minimal requirements are important, but MISEV is too restrictive ° Minimal requirements such as MISEV are an unnecessary imposition on the EV field ° I don't have strong feelings about minimal requirements 6. If standards are to be adopted, which of the following is preferable? ° ISEV, with a large and diverse membership, should continue to take the lead in establishing minimal requirements ° Minimal requirements are better established by national societies or regional collaborative networks ° Leading experts or laboratories should develop and publish their own standards, and the best (highest IF or most cited) publications will eventually become the de facto standards in the field ° I have no preference 7. An update to MISEV is planned … how should it proceed? ° The ISEV board and JEV editors should update MISEV as they see fit. ° The ISEV board should also recruit ISEV members who are not on the board to assist in updating MISEV ° The ISEV community as a whole should be involved in updating MISEV, with invitations to contribute to specific points; community-wide voting is not needed ° The ISEV community should be involved not only in contributing/feedback, but also in voting to ratify specific points 8. Please comment on sections/types of information should be retained in future MISEV updates (check all that are applicable) ° minimal requirements to claim the presence of EVs in isolates ° general characterization of EVs ° characterization of single EVs ° studies of functional activities of EVs ° recommendations for controls ° other/comments on the above 9. Needed additions to MISEV include: ° Advice on pros and cons of different isolation methods ° Advice on protein markers to use for different types of EVs ° Advice on reliable antibodies for the EV protein markers, for different applications (WB, flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, EM, etc.) ° Other (please specify) 10. If you would like to be involved in drafting or reviewing an update to MISEV, please provide your email address. Note: There will be additional opportunities to join the effort if you prefer not to disclose here. (Free form, optional) 11. If you would like to be involved in drafting or reviewing an update to MISEV, please describe your expertise in the EV field (e.g., published articles, unpublished work, specific areas of interest) (short answer, optional) 12. The following ISEV members should be consulted on MISEV updates (free form, optional) 13. If required, I/my laboratory are likely willing and able to devote a reasonable amount of resources to evaluate specific methods/reagents in the laboratory as needed to support a new MISEV release or other field-wide evaluation (yes/no) 14. Please share any other comments you may have (free form, optional) Respondents and their engagement with the MISEV2014 guidelines (Questions 1–3) Eighty-two per cent of respondents had read the MISEV2014 guidelines, whereas 18% had not. Fifty-six per cent of all respondents had published on EVs in 2015 or 2016 (i.e. after MISEV2014 appeared), whereas 44% had not. A slightly larger percentage of recent authors had read MISEV2014 (87%) compared with those who had not published on EVs recently (74%, Figure 1(a)). Seventy-one per cent of recently publishing authors indicated that they followed and/or cited MISEV2014 in their work (Figure 1(b)). Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Community engagement with MISEV. Perceived importance of guidelines (Questions 4 and 5) Since the MISEV2014 authors have received a wide range of praise and critical comments on the guidelines, we sought to determine how the ISEV community viewed EV reporting or experimental guidelines in general and MISEV2014 specifically. When the question was phrased, "Do you think that minimal reporting and/or methodologic requirements are important for the EV field?" (Question 4), only one respondent answered "no" (Figure 2(a)). There was thus near-unanimity among respondents that requirements are needed. A diversity of underlying opinions became apparent, though, through Question 5, a multiple-choice question about MISEV2014 in particular. Almost all respondents saw requirements as "important", and a majority (53%) supported MISEV2014 as is. However, 25% considered MISEV2014 to be too restrictive, whereas 16% said it was not stringent enough (Figure 2(b)). Four per cent thought that MISEV2014 was an unnecessary imposition on the field. In conclusion, most survey participants are in favour of standards, with a majority of respondents supporting MISEV2014. It is clear, though, that sizeable portions of the ISEV constituency might favour updates and changes to MISEV2014. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Opinions about minimal requirements in the EV field. Who should update MISEV2014 (Questions 6 and 7)? As for ISEV's role in updates to MISEV2014, approximately 80% of respondents named ISEV, "with its large and diverse membership", as the ideal body to issue requirements (Figure 3(a)). Other responses included "no preference" and nods to local or regional societies. Around 10% of respondents suggested that individual laboratories or scientists should publish requirements and that those with the highest impact factors or citations would become the de facto standards. The overwhelming emphasis on ISEV, however, places a responsibility on the society – leadership and membership – to advance standardization efforts for the field. One unambiguous outcome of the survey was that ISEV board members and JEV editors are not encouraged to update MISEV2014 alone. This approach was endorsed by only 4% of respondents (Figure 3(b)). Thirty-five per cent of participants asked the ISEV board to include ISEV members who are not on the board, and 62% felt that the entire ISEV community should be invited to participate. Of the latter group, approximately three in four said that community voting would not be necessary, whereas one in four favoured community-wide voting on specific points. Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Who should establish and update minimal requirements? Assembling a team for ongoingstandardization efforts A key goal of the MISEV2014 survey was to begin the process of identifying EV experts in addition to the previous MISEV2014 authorship and the ISEV Board of Directors who are able and willing to contribute to future community efforts. Sixty-eight respondents volunteered by providing their email addresses. Only two of these respondents were MISEV2014 authors or members of the ISEV Board of Directors. Fifty-six of the volunteers gave details of their areas of expertise, including publications in many cases. Additionally, 20 respondents suggested other EV experts who, in their view, should be involved in future updates to MISEV. These names included 22 who were not authors of the previous MISEV2014 publication and are not on the current ISEV board. Only minimal overlap between the "volunteers" and "volunteered" was observed. Thus, in total, approximately 85 unique individuals were identified as possible contributors. As stated in the survey, additional calls for volunteers will be made in the future. What topics should be retained or added (Questions 8 and 9)? The majority of respondents were in favour of keeping all current components of MISEV2014, with 85% or more supporting retention of minimal requirements to claim presence of EVs in isolates, general characterization of EVs and suggestions for controls. Smaller majorities endorsed retention of single EV guidelines and recommendations for functional studies (Figure 4(a)). What should or could be added in future MISEV updates? For Question 9, three choices were provided (specific recommendations on isolation methods, specific antibodies for detection and markers of multiple subtypes), along with an "other" comments box. While the way in which the survey was constructed prevented selection of more than one choice, the responses including the free-form comments made it clear that all selections were popular (Figure 4(b)). Updated recommendations on isolation methods were requested, including assessment of the proliferating commercial kit-based options to isolate EVs. Recommendations for judging the purity of vesicles were emphasized: while the presence of EVs is often shown, the presence and percentage of contaminants continue to be often ignored. Respondents suggested that contaminants could be categorized further based on EV sources (biofluids, tissues, cell-culture conditioned medium). Some felt that lists of reliable antibodies to detect EV positive or negative protein markers would be helpful, as well as guidelines on RNA, lipids and other EV components. Further guidelines on isolation method for functional studies were also raised, since isolation methods with different resultant purities may alter the functional roles of EV in vivo. Issuing from this problem, recommendations on experimental measurement of the activity of impurities were deemed important to place the functional roles of EVs in proper context. Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint MISEV: suggested retentions and additions. Positive and negative markers and contamination Examining the free-form comments for Questions 8 and 9, multiple responses addressed the problem of contamination and positive and negative markers. How does one recognize and quantitate the various possible contaminants? Can we arrive at a consensus purity measurement? How can activity of non-EV components be excluded in functional studies? What is a negative marker? Is it found exclusively in non-EV contaminants, or can it also be present, if at reduced relative amounts, in EVs? Should positive EV markers merely be found in EVs, or must they also be enriched? Other suggestions for additions Several commenters stressed the need to accommodate studies of EVs from rare cell types, low-abundance body fluids and other exceptions, and not simply take a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Recommendations on different subtypes of EVs were an item of interest for several respondents, as were newer or newly applied methods for EV separation. Other comments suggested topics such as storage of EVs, assessment of stability and omics analysis specific to EVs. Final comments box A final comments box in the survey was used by <7% of respondents. Most of these free-form responses were positive general comments on MISEV. One comment suggested that, for a MISEV update, a comprehensive review of methodologies might be useful. Several commenters emphasized that any future MISEV release should continue to allow for exceptions: cases where the requirements might be waived or recognized as inapplicable. Further action from the community to spread the word about EV minimal standards to journals and journal editors was also encouraged. Where do we go from here? Building bridges to enhance reproducibility in research Revealing and centralizing methodologic details are part of successful standardization. To this end, we recognize with enthusiasm the EV-TRACK knowledgebase that was announced in Nature Methods [6] and in the accompanying letter to the editor [5]. We strongly encourage EV researchers to join the EV-TRACK initiative (www.evtrack.org), to use its tools to help guide effective research design and evaluation, and to obtain an EV-METRIC for each manuscript. We also hope the EV-METRIC will be included in submissions to the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles and to other journals, as well. How will MISEV be updated? In addition to exciting initiatives like EV-TRACK, minimal requirements in the field must also be updated regularly. This will be a large task as the field grows, and input is sought from a wider swath. We were interested to read a "guidelines to guidelines" recently published by Daniel J. Klionsky [7], noted autophagy researcher and the driving force behind the well-known autophagy guidelines. These guidelines, published in 2008 [8] and updated in 2012 [9] and 2016 [10], now include several thousand authors who reviewed the text and offered changes in a carefully guided manner. Klionsky's staged writing process and a distributed author invitation plan ensure efficient progress but broad embrace of the global research body. In our view, the type of community consensus and buy-in fostered by this approach is exactly what we feel would be most valuable to EV researchers in an upcoming manifestation of the MISEV guidelines and also consistent with what the MISEV survey respondents indicated about their willingness and desire to be involved. Regarding uncertainty Standardization through MISEV updates is important, but of course uncertainty will remain that cannot be removed through minimal requirements alone. On many specific questions in EV research, including, for example, some quite basic matters of pre-analytical variables, the jury is still out. Careful comparisons to resolve these questions are conducted and published less often than might be optimal. This is because of the resources they require, resources that could otherwise be channelled into evaluating biological hypotheses that are more likely to secure funding. Importantly – and perhaps surprisingly to those who are less familiar with our highly collaborative field – 55% of respondents to the MISEV survey said that they or their laboratories could "devote reasonable resources" to evaluations, if these were to become necessary for MISEV updates. The language was kept intentionally vague, but "evaluations" could mean anything from literature reviews to technical/experimental comparisons. It is encouraging that such a large percentage of participants indicated a willingness to engage in coordinated activities. As needed, a Standardization Committee of ISEV could be formed to establish working groups on topics that have not been fully addressed and thus focus the substantial energies of the community. Summary Overall, the response to the ISEV survey on MISEV2014 produced three core findings: the value of MISEV2014, the need for regular updates that involve the wider community and the strong commitment of the ISEV community to advance the field through standardization efforts. Acknowledgements The contributions of all respondents to the MISEV2014 survey are gratefully acknowledged. The drafting authors would like to mention funding sources: US NIH DA040385 (KWW and CT), US NIH AG057430 (KWW) and US DoD W81XWH-16-1-0736 (CS). Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Biography KWW, CT, AF and MHM prepared the survey. KWW and CS analysed the results and wrote the manuscript. CT provided writing and planning assistance. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and provided feedback. References 1Lotvall J, Hill AF, Hochberg F, et al. Minimal experimental requirements for definition of extracellular vesicles and their functions: a position statement from the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles. J Extracell Vesicles [Internet]. 2014; 3: 1. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25536934 2Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem [Internet]. 2009 Feb 28; 55(4): 611– 8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246619 3Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet [Internet]. 2001 Dec 01; 29(4): 365– 371. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11726920 4Lee JA, Spidlen J, Boyce K, et al. MIFlowCyt: the minimum information about a flow cytometry experiment. Cytom Part A [Internet]. 2008 Oct; 73A(10): 926– 930. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18752282 5van Deun J, Hendrix A. Is your article EV-TRACKed? J Extracell Vesicles. Forthcoming 2017; 1. 6van Deun J, Mestdagh P, Agostinis P, et al. EV-TRACK: transparent reporting and centralizing knowledge in extracellular vesicle research. Nat Methods [Internet]. 2017 Feb 28; 14(3): 228– 232. [cited 2017 Mar 1]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28245209 7Klionsky DJ. Developing a set of guidelines for your research field: a practical approach. Mol Biol Cell [Internet]. 2016 Mar 1; 27(5): 733– 738. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26915690 8Klionsky DJ, Abeliovich H, Agostinis P, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes. Autophagy [Internet]. 2008 Feb; 4(2): 151– 175. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188003 9Klionsky D, Agholme L, Agnello M, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy Autophagy. 2012; 8(4): 445– 544. 10Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition). doi.org [Internet]. 2016 Jan 2. p. 1– 222. (1). [cited 2017 Sep 21]. Available form: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26799652 Citing Literature Volume6, Issue1December 20171396823 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation

Versatile Anion-Π Interactions Between Halides and a Conformationally Rigid Bis(tetraoxacalix[2]arene[2]triazine) Cage and Their Directing Effect on Molecular Assembly.

Azaborine Compounds for Organic Field‐Effect Transistors: Efficient Synthesis, Remarkable Stability, and BN Dipole Interactions

Ruxolitinib Combined with Dexamethasone in Adult Patients with Newly Diagnosed Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis: A Single‐center Pilot Trial

Building Fluorescent DNA Nanodevices on Target Living Cell Surfaces

Aromatic Spiroketal Bisphosphine Ligands: Palladium‐Catalyzed Asymmetric Allylic Amination of Racemic Morita–Baylis–Hillman Adducts

Cancer Therapy: Highly Efficient in Vivo Cancer Therapy by an Implantable Magnet Triboelectric Nanogenerator (adv. Funct. Mater. 41/2019)

Expert Consensus on Perioperative Medications During Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Lesions (2015, Suzhou, China)

Self‐Assembled TiO2 Nanocrystal Clusters for Selective Enrichment of Intact Phosphorylated Proteins

Zirconium‐Metalloporphyrin PCN‐222: Mesoporous Metal–Organic Frameworks with Ultrahigh Stability As Biomimetic Catalysts

Observation of Colossal Topological Hall Effect in Noncoplanar Ferromagnet Cr5Te6 Thin Films (adv. Funct. Mater. 33/2023)

Updating the MISEV Minimal Requirements for Extracellular Vesicle Studies: Building Bridges to Reproducibility

Unprecedented Organoimido-Derivatised Lacunary Polyoxometalates.

Detection of Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes Directly from Urine Samples in Patients Suspected of Urinary Tract Infection by Metagenomics Nanopore Sequencing: A Large-Scale Multi-Centre Study

Withdrawal: Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Upgraded “2C3L” Versus PVI Approach for Catheter Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: PROMPT‐AF Trial Design

Physical Organic Study of Structure-Activity-Enantioselectivity Relationships in Asymmetric Bifunctional Thiourea Catalysis: Hints for the Design of New Organocatalysts

The Concentrated Antibody from Convalescent Plasma Balanced the Dysfunctional Immune Responses in Patients with Critical COVID‐19

CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 1. Physics and Detector

Cohort Profile: the Tongji Maternal and Child Health Cohort (TMCHC).

Investigation of Non‐covalent Interaction of ANF Promoter DNA and Polyamides Containing N‐methylimidazole and N‐methylpyrrole Amino Acids by Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry

Graphical Abstract: Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 13/2021

Cryogenic Electron Ptychographic Single-Particle Analysis (Cryo-Epty SPA)