Effect of Nonmyeloablative Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation vs Continued Disease-Modifying Therapy on Disease Progression in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Adolescent
Adult
Antilymphocyte Serum
/ therapeutic use
Combined Modality Therapy
Cyclophosphamide
/ therapeutic use
Disease Progression
Female
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
/ adverse effects
Humans
Immunologic Factors
/ therapeutic use
Immunosuppressive Agents
/ therapeutic use
Male
Middle Aged
Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting
/ drug therapy
Young Adult
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 01 2019
15 01 2019
Historique:
entrez:
16
1
2019
pubmed:
16
1
2019
medline:
21
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) represents a potentially useful approach to slow or prevent progressive disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). To compare the effect of nonmyeloablative HSCT vs disease-modifying therapy (DMT) on disease progression. Between September 20, 2005, and July 7, 2016, a total of 110 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, at least 2 relapses while receiving DMT in the prior year, and an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS; score range, 0-10 [10 = worst neurologic disability]) score of 2.0 to 6.0 were randomized at 4 US, European, and South American centers. Final follow-up occurred in January 2018 and database lock in February 2018. Patients were randomized to receive HSCT along with cyclophosphamide (200 mg/kg) and antithymocyte globulin (6 mg/kg) (n = 55) or DMT of higher efficacy or a different class than DMT taken during the previous year (n = 55). The primary end point was disease progression, defined as an EDSS score increase after at least 1 year of 1.0 point or more (minimal clinically important difference, 0.5) on 2 evaluations 6 months apart, with differences in time to progression estimated as hazard ratios. Among 110 randomized patients (73 [66%] women; mean age, 36 [SD, 8.6] years), 103 remained in the trial, with 98 evaluated at 1 year and 23 evaluated yearly for 5 years (median follow-up, 2 years; mean, 2.8 years). Disease progression occurred in 3 patients in the HSCT group and 34 patients in the DMT group. Median time to progression could not be calculated in the HSCT group because of too few events; it was 24 months (interquartile range, 18-48 months) in the DMT group (hazard ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.24; P < .001). During the first year, mean EDSS scores decreased (improved) from 3.38 to 2.36 in the HSCT group and increased (worsened) from 3.31 to 3.98 in the DMT group (between-group mean difference, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.03 to -1.29; P < .001). There were no deaths and no patients who received HSCT developed nonhematopoietic grade 4 toxicities (such as myocardial infarction, sepsis, or other disabling or potential life-threatening events). In this preliminary study of patients with relapsing-remitting MS, nonmyeloablative HSCT, compared with DMT, resulted in prolonged time to disease progression. Further research is needed to replicate these findings and to assess long-term outcomes and safety. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00273364.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30644983
pii: 2720728
doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.18743
pmc: PMC6439765
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antilymphocyte Serum
0
Immunologic Factors
0
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Cyclophosphamide
8N3DW7272P
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00273364']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
165-174Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001422
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Mult Scler. 1999 Aug;5(4):244-50
pubmed: 10467383
N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 16;343(20):1430-8
pubmed: 11078767
J Exp Med. 2005 Mar 7;201(5):805-16
pubmed: 15738052
Neurology. 2005 Apr 12;64(7):1144-51
pubmed: 15824338
Ann Neurol. 2005 Dec;58(6):840-6
pubmed: 16283615
Neurology. 1991 Feb;41(2 ( Pt 1)):332
pubmed: 1992392
Lancet. 2012 Nov 24;380(9856):1829-39
pubmed: 23122650
Lancet. 2012 Nov 24;380(9856):1819-28
pubmed: 23122652
Mult Scler Int. 2013;2013:189624
pubmed: 23555057
Immunology. 2013 Oct;140(2):211-9
pubmed: 23721329
Brain. 2013 Sep;136(Pt 9):2888-903
pubmed: 23864273
BMC Neurol. 2013 Nov 19;13:180
pubmed: 24245966
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014 Oct;85(10):1116-21
pubmed: 24554104
JAMA Neurol. 2015 Feb;72(2):159-69
pubmed: 25546364
JAMA. 2015 Jan 20;313(3):275-84
pubmed: 25602998
Neurology. 2015 May 26;84(21):2185-92
pubmed: 25911108
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 06;10(7):e0132033
pubmed: 26148099
Mult Scler. 2017 Feb;23(2):201-204
pubmed: 27207454
J Med Econ. 2017 Mar;20(3):297-302
pubmed: 27822961
JAMA Neurol. 2017 Aug 1;74(8):961-969
pubmed: 28604916
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):169-180
pubmed: 29320652
Neurology. 1984 Oct;34(10):1368-72
pubmed: 6541311
Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52
pubmed: 6685237
J Neurol. 1997 Mar;244(3):153-9
pubmed: 9050955