Effect of donor type and conditioning regimen intensity on allogeneic transplantation outcomes in patients with sickle cell disease: a retrospective multicentre, cohort study.
Adolescent
Adult
Anemia, Sickle Cell
/ mortality
Blood Donors
Bone Marrow Transplantation
/ adverse effects
Child
Female
Fetal Blood
/ transplantation
Graft vs Host Disease
/ etiology
Histocompatibility Testing
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation
Progression-Free Survival
Proportional Hazards Models
Retrospective Studies
Survival Rate
Transplantation, Homologous
Young Adult
Journal
The Lancet. Haematology
ISSN: 2352-3026
Titre abrégé: Lancet Haematol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101643584
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
11
01
2019
revised:
17
06
2019
accepted:
19
06
2019
pubmed:
10
9
2019
medline:
31
10
2019
entrez:
10
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. National Institutes of Health and US Health Services Research Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
RESULTS
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
BACKGROUND
National Institutes of Health and US Health Services Research Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31495699
pii: S2352-3026(19)30154-1
doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30154-1
pmc: PMC6813907
mid: NIHMS1539939
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e585-e596Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U24 CA076518
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
Stat Med. 1997 Apr 30;16(8):901-10
pubmed: 9160487
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015 Apr;21(4):604-11
pubmed: 25240817
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995 Jun;15(6):825-8
pubmed: 7581076
Blood. 2019 Feb 14;133(7):754-762
pubmed: 30545834
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 02;9(7):e99489
pubmed: 24988120
Blood. 2004 Jun 1;103(11):4023-7
pubmed: 14764527
Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jul;4(7):e325-e333
pubmed: 28623181
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Oct;48(10):1335-41
pubmed: 23604009
Lancet Haematol. 2019 Apr;6(4):e183-e193
pubmed: 30878319
Blood. 2012 Jan 5;119(1):296-307
pubmed: 22010102
Blood Adv. 2017 Apr 19;1(11):652-661
pubmed: 29296707
Blood. 2017 Sep 28;130(13):1597-1599
pubmed: 28830890
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Apr;48(4):537-43
pubmed: 23222384
Blood. 2017 Mar 16;129(11):1548-1556
pubmed: 27965196
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1989 May;4(3):247-54
pubmed: 2659110
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009 Dec;15(12):1628-33
pubmed: 19896087
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Jun;25(6):1197-1209
pubmed: 30500440
N Engl J Med. 1996 Aug 8;335(6):369-76
pubmed: 8663884
Blood. 2012 Oct 4;120(14):2918-24
pubmed: 22829628
Blood. 2007 Oct 1;110(7):2749-56
pubmed: 17606762
JAMA. 2014 Jul 2;312(1):48-56
pubmed: 25058217
Am J Hematol. 2014 May;89(5):530-5
pubmed: 24478166
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 24;371(4):339-48
pubmed: 25054717
Public Health Rep. 2013 Mar-Apr;128(2):110-6
pubmed: 23450875
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017 Jun;52(6):938-940
pubmed: 28436975
Hum Gene Ther. 2018 Oct;29(10):1153-1166
pubmed: 30198339
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2007 Nov;88(2):95-101
pubmed: 17850917
Blood. 2016 Nov 24;128(21):2561-2567
pubmed: 27625358
Blood. 2012 Nov 22;120(22):4285-91
pubmed: 22955919