Trial Report Plasma cell targeting with the anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab in ME/CFS -a clinical pilot study, 2025, Fluge et al

Jonathan Edwards said:
The paper quoted looks to me to be based on a misunderstanding of Ig half life. I am also amazed that anyone should consider giving IVIG with rituximab (what the paper discusses). I would ignore it.

70g is a lot of Ig but a normal person probably already has 50-100gm in body fluids. It all sounds very speculative and irrelevant to me but I can't see a good reason to be having IVIG anyway?
Click to expand...

Well because in theory Dara depletes IGG and makes you more susceptible to infection so IVIG could help with that while you are immuno suppressed while on Dara.

Why do you say that IVIG with Ritux is a bad idea anyway? Aside from the effect of making it less potent.
 
ryanc97 said:
Well because in theory Dara depletes IGG and makes you more susceptible to infection so IVIG could help with that while you are immuno suppressed while on Dara.
Click to expand...

Yes, but then you would want to give the IVIG much later when the levels have gone down, not when the levels are up.

Same for ritux. We gave IVIG 3 months later if needed. But not if not needed. Giving the IVIG at the same time seems to me barmy.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
The paper quoted looks to me to be based on a misunderstanding of Ig half life. I am also amazed that anyone should consider giving IVIG with rituximab (what the paper discusses). I would ignore it.

70g is a lot of Ig but a normal person probably already has 50-100gm in body fluids. It all sounds very speculative and irrelevant to me but I can't see a good reason to be having IVIG anyway?
Click to expand...
IVIG is useless for severe MECFS ? I can have IVIG for free in public hospital. I have POTS too... i dont know if i have to take the risk. I dont find papers mentionned IVIG for trial in MECF.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Yes, but then you would want to give the IVIG much later when the levels have gone down, not when the levels are up.

Same for ritux. We gave IVIG 3 months later if needed. But not if not needed. Giving the IVIG at the same time seems to me barmy.
Click to expand...

Barmy because it decreases potency of the mab?
 
ryanc97 said:
Barmy because it decreases potency of the mab?
Click to expand...

No, because it is being given at a time when it is not needed and since it has a short half life it involves pouring money down the drain and exposing the patient to unnecessary risks of unwanted effects. Unless I have misunderstood it sounds to me as if there is some seriously incompetent therapeutics going on.
 
My lab gives very different NK count ranges for females and males. The ones in the study dont strikeme as particularly low, maybe they reported the compound range in the study?

Females: 77-321
Males: 67-516

Bisset LR, Lung TL, Kaelin M, Ludwig E, Dubs RW. Reference values for peripheral blood lymphocyte phenotypes applicable to the healthy adult population in Switzerland. Eur J Haematol 2004; 72: 203-12.
 
I've been trying to make sense of some of the facts stated here.
- There is not a lot of difference in IgG levels between responders and non-responders.
- All the killing happens fast (JE)
- Yet a single dose is not enough
- and non-responders show no improvement at all.

So maybe all the important killing happens later and it's about having a steady stream of NK supply so whenever a B-cell expresses CD-38 there is something there to kill it. That would also imply CD-38 is a good target for picking the culprits.

Just my thoughts, not sure if it makes sense medically.
 
fst said:
There is not a lot of difference in IgG levels between responders and non-responders.
Click to expand...

Not really.

Well working with very small sample sizes here.

For non-responders:

Patients 3 and 9 weren’t able to reduce IGG much—8.2 and 7.7 at 5 months. Patient 4 was able to reduce IGG to 3.7 at 5 months but started at the lowest level—6.8. By month nine patient 6 was above 7 and the partial responder, patient 5, was back to 7.6.

Because I love cherries, if we exclude patient 4 and count the partial responder as a non responder, then by month 9, mean of responders is 4.6 and non-responders is 7.3–a 60% difference.

So with the exception of patient 4, if you can’t reduce and maintain low IGG you are less likely to respond.

Did this really quickly—please let me know if I made an error.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7962.jpeg
    IMG_7962.jpeg
    953.3 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Jaybee00 said:
Not really.

Well working with very small sample sizes here.

For non-responders:

Patients 3 and 9 weren’t able to reduce IGG much—8.2 and 7.7 at 5 months. Patient 4 was able to reduce IGG to 3.7 at 5 months but started at the lowest level—6.8. By month nine patient 6 was above 7 and the partial responder, patient 5, was back to 7.6.

Because I love cherries, if we exclude patient 4 and count the partial responder as a non responder, then by month 9, mean of responders is 4.6 and non-responders is 7.3–a 60% difference.

So with the exception of patient 4, if you can’t reduce and maintain low IGG you are less likely to respond.

Did this really quickly—please let me know if I made an error.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I have been fooled by the small sample size and Figure 6H. Still I find the ratio between IgG drops and response magnitude odd.
 
I was just looking at some of the first rituximab studies, and comparing them to the Daratumumab trial like some members were doing on the first pages here. They do have a point. The resemblance between the self reported results are eerie!! Sadly, no step counts were measured in the P1 and Ptwo as far as I can see. So the only thing we can go by is the difference in the P3 rituximab and Dara P1. Where the difference in my opinion is huge.

In my twenty five years of MECFS I have only had one brief remission, and just as I was starting to get worse during said remission I bought a Fitbit to track my daily steps.

January represents my current daily steps.

1770234138931.png

June is when I bought the Fitbit
1770234293400.png

You can see the point where my ´´remission`` really starts going downhill in the middle of June.

If the P1 trial results can be replicated then in my opinion it doesn`t just have massive biological implications for MECFS, but also has the implication that step count is an important outcome measure that should be used from now on to predict if the patients are actually genuinely improving. It isn`t perfect. But if the results can be replicated in the placebo trial then the step counts seem a better indicator of improvement? Depending on the sort of patients you include of course (For the majority of my time as mild I could easily do and probably did 10k steps a day, thus if I were included when I was mild in a study daily steps would be useless).

Thanks to Murph who has the comparison between the different rituximab trials and Daratumumab on the first page, if anyone is interested.
 
Last edited:
Rick Sanchez said:
I was just looking at some of the first rituximab studies, and comparing them to the Daratumumab trial like some members were doing on the first pages here. They do have a point. The resemblance between the self reported results are eerie!! Sadly, no step counts were measured in the P1 and Ptwo as far as I can see. So the only thing we can go by is the difference in the P3 rituximab and Dara P1. Where the difference in my opinion is huge.

In my twenty five years of MECFS I have only had one brief remission, and just as I was starting to get worse during said remission I bought a Fitbit to track my daily steps.

January represents my current daily steps.

View attachment 30426

June is when I bought the Fitbit
View attachment 30427

You can see the point where my ´´remission`` really starts going downhill in the middle of June.

If the P1 trial results can be replicated then in my opinion it doesn`t just have massive biological implications for MECFS, but also has the implication that step count is an important outcome measure that should be used from now on to predict if the patients are actually genuinely improving. It isn`t perfect. But if the results can be replicated in the placebo trial then the step counts seem a better indicator of improvement? Depending on the sort of patients you include of course (For the majority of my time as mild I could easily do and probably did 10k steps a day, thus if I were included when I was mild in a study daily steps would be useless).

Thanks to Murph who has the comparison between the different rituximab trials and Daratumumab on the first page, if anyone is interested.
Click to expand...
I mean yes, it’s about bloody time scientists realized surveys are not reliable and observed outcomes are much better than surveys.

Of course on bedbound people this may not be accurate, but it should still reflect, e.g from bedbound to housebound.
 
Last edited:
ryanc97 said:
I mean yes, it’s about bloody time scientists realized surveys are not reliable and observed outcomes are much better than surveys.

Of course on bedbound people this may not be accurate, but it should still reflect, e.g from bedbound to housebound.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is the relativity that is important.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but apparently Scandinavia is one of the places with the highest step counts in the world (where I also happen to be from). The billion dollar question is if the improvement is down to placebo....
 
Last edited:
Rick Sanchez said:
Yes. It is the relativity that is important.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but apparently Scandinavia is one of the places with the highest step counts in the world (where I also happen to be from). The billion dollar question is if the improvement is down to placebo....
Click to expand...

To me, the question is not whether it is placebo. Clearly it works. For some. The question is why it works for responders, why it doesn't for non responders and also what does this reveal about the underlying mechanism of ME/CFS.

You don't triple your step count consistently for months due to placebo.

I would want to figure out the underlying mechanism, because if it works, technically, it cures ME/CFS.
 
ryanc97 said:
You don't triple your step count consistently for months due to placebo.
Click to expand...
They do seem to have got a lot better. The other thing is a lot of people try something, say they're feeling much better and crash horribly a few months later. These responders stayed better for two years.*

*at least one has since partially relapsed and been retreated as per the last case study update, and they say they are retreating more so I assume more people have relapsed somewhat. The point is they stayed well for a long time.
 
Last edited:
ryanc97 said:
To me, the question is not whether it is placebo. Clearly it works. For some. The question is why it works for responders, why it doesn't for non responders and also what does this reveal about the underlying mechanism of ME/CFS.

You don't triple your step count consistently for months due to placebo.

I would want to figure out the underlying mechanism, because if it works, technically, it cures ME/CFS.
Click to expand...

I would really not say clearly when the study was N=10 and we have some patients that we know for certain had no response. I am saying this as someone who is irrationally optimistic on Daratumumab, I`ve even donated to the Placebo trial.

Placebo covers so much. They could very well just have gotten ´´unlucky`` with the patient selection in a N=10 trial. Especially given that a couple were completely unresponsive.
 
ryanc97 said:
You don't triple your step count consistently for months due to placebo.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that although your intuition may be right that a person with the disease that most members here probably have may well be unlikely to triple a step count for months, we cannot discount the possibility that some people with a diagnosis of ME/CFS have other diseases that may be critically different in this respect. You are assuming they all had the ME/CFS you are familiar with. I don't think you can know that.

I would like to believe Dara works but I have seen enough trial results to know that you cannot take these findings as proof of 'response'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom