GPIIb/IIIa Autoantibody Predicts Better Rituximab Response in ITP
Rui Feng,Xinguang Liu,Yajing Zhao,Yuanyuan Zhu,Jun Peng,Ming Hou,Chunyan Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.14782
2018-01-01
British Journal of Haematology
Abstract:Primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an acquired bleeding disorder in which autoantibodies play a critical role in platelet destruction. Previous studies indicated that ITP patients with anti-glycoprotein (GP)Ib/IX antibodies were less responsive to intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG) therapy (Peng et al, 2014) and showed a relatively lower response rate to glucocorticoid therapy (Zeng et al, 2012). Rituximab has been used as second-line treatment in ITP for a decade, but there is still no clinically useful test to predict its efficacy. We retrospectively analysed the relationship between antibody specificities and the efficacy of rituximab in ITP, and found that patients with anti-GPIIb/IIIa autoantibodies were more responsive to rituximab treatment. The present study included 86 corticosteroid-resistant or relapsed adult ITP patients hospitalized between January 2011 and January 2016 at the Department of Haematology, Qilu Hospital. All included patients met the International Working Group diagnostic criteria for ITP (Rodeghiero et al, 2009). Rituximab was given intravenously at 100 mg weekly for 4 weeks (55 cases), or a single dose of 375 mg/m2 (31 cases). Response was defined as a platelet count increase to ≥30 × 109/l and doubling the baseline platelet count, and no haemorrhagic manifestations. The response rates were calculated at least 3 months after the initiation of rituximab treatment. Autoantibody specificity was determined prior to rituximab treatment by modified monoclonal antibody specific immobilization of platelet antigen (MAIPA) assay as previously described (Peng et al, 2014). Statistical analyses were conducted using t tests for quantitative variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. Logistic regression analysis was used to quantify the effect of variables on rituximab response. A P value of <0·05 indicated statistical significance, Bonferroni correction was used for multi-group comparisons. All tests were performed by SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Among the 86 patients, 22·1% (19/86) presented only anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies, 16·3% (14/86) presented only anti-GPIb/IX antibodies, 19·8% (17/86) presented both anti-GPIIb/IIIa and anti-GPIb/IX antibodies (double positive) and 41·9% (36/86) had neither anti-GPIIb/IIIa nor anti-GPIb/IX antibodies (double negative) (Table 1). The response rates for different doses of rituximab are listed in Tables SI and SII. There were no statistical differences in gender (χ2 = 0·085, P = 0·994), age (F = 0·275, P = 0·843), baseline platelet counts (F = 0·639, P = 0·592), patients treated with different rituximab dose (χ2 = 1·024, P = 0·795) or duration of response (F = 0·362, P = 0·780) among the four groups. Patients who presented antibodies against GPIIb/IIIa (27/36 = 75·0%) achieved a higher response rate than patients without anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies (23/50 = 46·0%) (χ2 = 7·233, P = 0·007; Table SIII, Fig 1). No significant difference emerged between the groups with or without anti-GPIb/IX antibodies (17/31 = 54·8% vs. 33/55 = 60%, χ2 = 0·217, P = 0·641). Further comparisons showed that the response rate was not significantly different between anti-GPIIb/IIIa positive patients with (12/17 = 70·6%) or without (15/19 = 78·9%) (χ2 = 0·334, P = 0·563) anti-GPIb/IX antibodies. Likewise, no statistical difference was observed in anti-GPIIb/IIIa negative patients with (5/14 = 35·7%) or without (18/36 = 50%) (χ2 = 0·828, P = 0·363) the presence of anti-GPIb/IX antibodies. Moreover, we also found that patients with single anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies were more sensitive to rituximab treatment than those with single anti-GPIb/IX antibodies (χ2 = 6·310, P = 0·012) and double negative cases (χ2 = 4·342, P = 0·037), but neither achieved significance (P > 0·05/6 ≈ 0·008, respectively). The response rate was not significantly different in patients with anti-GPIb/IX antibodies, with or without the presence of anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies (χ2 = 3·770, P = 0·052). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age, gender, pre-treatment platelet count, or rituximab dose were not associated with patients’ response (Table SIV). Only anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibody remained related to rituximab response (the estimated odds ratio [OR] of response for patients with anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies relative to patients without anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies was 3·806 [P = 0·008]). The analysis did not show any association between the response rate and the existence of anti-GPIb/IX autoantibody (OR 0·578, 95% confidence interval 0·216–1·546). Primary ITP is a disorder caused by increased platelet destruction and impaired platelet production. Corticosteroids are recommended as the first-line treatment with relatively high response rates. Second-line therapies for corticosteroid-resistant or relapsed patients include splenectomy and rituximab. As splenectomy is an invasive procedure, very few patients opt to receive it in China. Rituximab is a monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody that provides an initial response rate of almost 60% in ITP at the standard dosage at 375 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks (Patel et al, 2012). Recent studies demonstrated that two low-dose rituximab regimens, 100 mg weekly for 4 weeks (Zaja et al, 2010) or a single dose of 375 mg/m2 (Taube et al, 2005), possessed similar therapeutic efficacy as the standard dose (Taube et al, 2005; Zaja et al, 2010), and these dosing schedules are currently recommended. We found that ITP patients with anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies were more responsive to rituximab treatment. The precise reason for this phenomenon remains unknown. It has been reported that anti-GPIb antibodies were associated with a lower platelet count and inadequate responses to corticosteroids (Zeng et al, 2012) and IVIG (Peng et al, 2014), although they were less prevalent than anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies in ITP patients. By contrast, Nishimoto et al (2013) developed a murine ITP model by complete Treg depletion, and found that antiplatelet autoantibodies preferentially targeted GPIb/IX over GPIIb/IIIa. Similarly, it is reasonable to speculate that the immunological situation in ITP patients with anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies might be different from those with anti-GPIb/IX antibodies. Anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies induce platelet destruction by Fc-dependent phagocytosis, while the action of anti-GPIb/IX antibodies is Fc-independent (Nieswandt et al, 2000). Rituximab would deplete B-lymphocytes, reducing autoantibody levels and anti-GPIIb/IIIa-mediated platelet destruction, which could barely interfere with the anti-GPIb/IX antibody pathway (Stasi et al, 2008). Moreover, our recently published data showed that cytotoxic t-lymphocytes could induce platelet GPIb desialylation, subsequently leading to platelet clearance in the liver via hepatocyte asialoglycoprotein receptors (Qiu et al, 2016). However, whether GPIb desialylation is associated with the exposure of hidden epitopes and the production of anti-GPIb/IX antibodies still needs further investigation. In summary, our study showed that ITP patients with anti-GPIIb/IIIa autoantibodies were more responsive to rituximab treatment; therefore, autoantibodies might be useful predictors for rituximab response in ITP treatment. We would like to acknowledge Dr. Zhongshang Yuan for his valuable suggestions in the preparation of this paper. This work was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81670146, 81470318, and 81570103). Rui Feng: collected data, wrote the paper; Xinguang Liu: designed and performed research, wrote the paper; Yajing Zhao: performed laboratory operations; Yuanyuan Zhu: guided and performed laboratory operations; Jun Peng: performed statistical analysis, approved the final version of the paper; Ming Hou: designed research, approved the final version of the paper; Chunyan Chen: designed and performed research, wrote the paper, approved the final version of the paper. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Table SI. Response rates of platelet autoantibody groups of rituximab dose at 100 mg weekly for 4 weeks. Table SII. Response rates of platelet autoantibody groups of rituximab dose at 375 mg/m2 once. Table SIII. Association of specific antibodies and comparisons of response rates to rituximab therapy. Table SIV. Multivariable logistic regression analysis of response to age, gender, baseline platelet count, rituximab dose, anti-GPIb/IX and anti-GPIIb/IIIa antibodies. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.