Literature DB >> 31495699

Effect of donor type and conditioning regimen intensity on allogeneic transplantation outcomes in patients with sickle cell disease: a retrospective multicentre, cohort study.

Mary Eapen1, Ruta Brazauskas2, Mark C Walters3, Françoise Bernaudin4, Khalid Bo-Subait5, Courtney D Fitzhugh6, Jane S Hankins7, Julie Kanter8, Joerg J Meerpohl9, Javier Bolaños-Meade10, Julie A Panepinto11, Damiano Rondelli12, Shalini Shenoy13, Joi Williamson14, Teonna L Woolford14, Eliane Gluckman15, John E Wagner16, John F Tisdale6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Donors other than matched siblings and low-intensity conditioning regimens are increasingly used in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We aimed to compare the relative risk of donor type and conditioning regimen intensity on the transplantation outcomes of in patients with sickle cell disease.
METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, we collected data from 90 US centres reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Eligible patients were younger than 50 years, had genetically confirmed sickle cell disease (Hb SS) or sickle beta thalassemia (Hb Sβ), and underwent allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 28, 2017. We considered transplants from donor-recipient pairs matched at the allele-level (HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, and HLA-DRB1), including HLA-matched sibling donors, haploidentical related donors, matched unrelated donors, or mismatched unrelated donors. The main outcome was event-free survival. The effect of donor type, conditioning regimen intensity (myeloablative, non-myeloablative, and reduced-intensity regimens), age (≤12 or 13-49 years), sex, performance score, comorbidity index, recipient cytomegalovirus serostatus, graft type (bone marrow, peripheral blood, or umbilical cord blood), and transplantation period (2008-12 and 2013-17) on outcomes was studied using Cox regression models.
FINDINGS: Of 996 patients with sickle cell disease and who underwent transplantation in 2008-17, 910 (91%) were included (558 [61%] patients had HLA-matched sibling donors, 137 [15%] haploidentical related donors, 111 [12%] matched unrelated donors, and 104 [11%] mismatched unrelated donors). The median follow-up was 36 months (IQR 18-60) after transplantation from HLA-matched siblings, 25 months (12-48) after transplantation from haploidentical related donors, 37 months (23-60) after transplantation from HLA-matched unrelated donors, and 47 months (24-72) after transplantation from mismatched unrelated donors. Event-free survival was worse in recipients aged 13 years or older than in those younger than 13 years (hazard ratio 1·74, 95% CI 1·24-2·45; p=0·0014) and in those who received a transplant from haploidentical related donors (5·30, 3·17-8·86; p<0·0001), matched unrelated donors (3·71, 2·39-5·75; p<0·0001), and mismatched unrelated donors (4·34, 2·58-7·32; p<0·0001) than in patients who received a transplant from matched siblings. There was no significant difference in event-free survival between recipients of transplants from non-sibling donors: haploidentical related donors (1·43, 0·81-2·50; p=0·21) or mismatched unrelated donors (1·17, 0·67-2·05; p=0·58) versus HLA-matched unrelated donors, or mismatched unrelated donors versus haploidentical related donors (1·22, 0·65-2·27; p=0·98). Event-free survival was also worse in patients conditioned with reduced-intensity regimens (1·97, 1·15-3·36; p=0·013) than in those conditioned with non-myeloablative regimens, but did not differ between those who received myeloablative compared with non-myeloablative regimens (1·57, 0·95-2·61; p=0·079). Interpretation Our data suggest that event-free survival is improved in patients with sickle cell disease who receive an allogenic transplantation at age 12 years or younger and those with an HLA-matched sibling donor. For patients without a matched sibling available for transplantation, our data do not favour one alternative donor type over another in this setting. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health and US Health Services Research Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31495699      PMCID: PMC6813907          DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30154-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Haematol        ISSN: 2352-3026            Impact factor:   18.959


  33 in total

1.  Treating sickle cell anemia.

Authors:  John F Tisdale; Swee Lay Thein; William A Eaton
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Successful mismatched hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for pediatric hemoglobinopathy by using ATG and post-transplant cyclophosphamide.

Authors:  Lisa V E Oostenbrink; Emma S Pool; Cornelia M Jol-van der Zijde; Anja M Jansen-Hoogendijk; Carly Vervat; Astrid G S van Halteren; Robbert G M Bredius; Frans J W Smiers; Maarten J D van Tol; Marco W Schilham; Arjan C Lankester; Alexander B Mohseny
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 5.483

3.  Curative vs targeted therapy for SCD: does it make more sense to address the root cause than target downstream events?

Authors:  Marilyn J Telen
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-07-28

4.  The role of HLA matching in unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for sickle cell disease in Europe.

Authors:  Eliane Gluckman; Josu de la Fuente; Barbara Cappelli; Graziana M Scigliuolo; Fernanda Volt; Karina Tozatto-Maio; Vanderson Rocha; Mina Tommaso; Farah O'Boyle; Frans Smiers; Claudia Bettoni Da Cunha-Riehm; Elisabetta Calore; Sonia Bonanomi; Stelios Graphakos; Anna Paisiou; Michael H Albert; Annalisa Ruggeri; Marco Zecca; Arjan C Lankester; Selim Corbacioglu
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 5.483

5.  Risk score to predict event-free survival after hematopoietic cell transplant for sickle cell disease.

Authors:  Ruta Brazauskas; Graziana M Scigliuolo; Hai-Lin Wang; Barbara Cappelli; Annalisa Ruggeri; Courtney D Fitzhugh; Jane S Hankins; Julie Kanter; Joerg J Meerpohl; Julie A Panepinto; Damiano Rondelli; Shalini Shenoy; Mark C Walters; John E Wagner; John F Tisdale; Eliane Gluckman; Mary Eapen
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 22.113

6.  A pause in gene therapy: Reflecting on the unique challenges of sickle cell disease.

Authors:  Alexis Leonard; John F Tisdale
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 11.454

Review 7.  Genetic therapies for the first molecular disease.

Authors:  Phillip A Doerfler; Akshay Sharma; Jerlym S Porter; Yan Zheng; John F Tisdale; Mitchell J Weiss
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 14.808

8.  Abatacept is effective as GVHD prophylaxis in unrelated donor stem cell transplantation for children with severe sickle cell disease.

Authors:  Alexander Ngwube; Niketa Shah; Kamar Godder; David Jacobsohn; Monica L Hulbert; Shalini Shenoy
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-08-25

Review 9.  Impact of hemoglobin biophysical studies on molecular pathogenesis and drug therapy for sickle cell disease.

Authors:  William A Eaton
Journal:  Mol Aspects Med       Date:  2021-07-14

10.  Development of β-globin gene correction in human hematopoietic stem cells as a potential durable treatment for sickle cell disease.

Authors:  Annalisa Lattanzi; Joab Camarena; Premanjali Lahiri; Helen Segal; Waracharee Srifa; Christopher A Vakulskas; Richard L Frock; Josefin Kenrick; Ciaran Lee; Narae Talbott; Jason Skowronski; M Kyle Cromer; Carsten T Charlesworth; Rasmus O Bak; Sruthi Mantri; Gang Bao; David DiGiusto; John Tisdale; J Fraser Wright; Neehar Bhatia; Maria Grazia Roncarolo; Daniel P Dever; Matthew H Porteus
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 17.956

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.