Table 1.
Study | Novel therapy | Sample size | Response |
---|---|---|---|
Lopez et al8 | MMF | 24 | 75% |
Baudard et al9 | MMF | 15 | 69% |
Busca et al10 | MMF | 15 | 60% |
Krejci et al11 | MMF | 11 | 64% |
Kim et al12 | MMF | 13 | 77% |
Mookerjee et al13 | MMF | 26 | 46% |
Ratanathorn et al14 | Rituximab | 8 | 50% |
Canniga Van Dijk et al15 | Rituxumab | 6 | 83% |
Cutler et al17 | Rituximab | 21 | 70% |
Couriel et al18 | Sirolimus | 35 | 63% |
Jurado et al19 | Sirolimus | 47 | 81% |
Johnston et al20 | Sirolimus | 16 | 93% |
Greinix et al22 | ECP | 15 | 80% (skin) |
Apisarnthanarax et al23 | ECP | 32 | 56% (skin) |
Foss et al24 | ECP | 25 | 80% (skin) |
Kanold et al25 | ECP | 63 | 63% |
Couriel et al21 | ECP | 71 | 61% |
Akpek et al26 | Pulsed steroids | 61 | 75% |
Jacobsohn et al27 | Pentostatin | 58 | 55% |
Willenbacher et al28 | Daclizumab | 4 | 75% |
Chiang et al29 | Etanercept | 10 | 70% |
Browne et al31 | Thalidomide | 37 | 38% |
Parker et al32 | Thalidomide | 80 | 20% |
MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; ECP. extracorporeal photopheresis.