在治疗复发缓解型多发性硬化症的自体造血干细胞移植中使用 BEAM 或环磷酰胺。

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Thomas Silfverberg, Christina Zjukovskaja, Yassine Noui, Kristina Carlson, AutoMS-Swe Investigators, Joachim Burman
{"title":"在治疗复发缓解型多发性硬化症的自体造血干细胞移植中使用 BEAM 或环磷酰胺。","authors":"Thomas Silfverberg, Christina Zjukovskaja, Yassine Noui, Kristina Carlson, AutoMS-Swe Investigators, Joachim Burman","doi":"10.1038/s41409-024-02397-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The most widely used conditioning regimens in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are BEAM with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and high-dose cyclophosphamide with ATG (Cy/ATG). In this retrospective study, we compare efficacy and safety of these regimens when used for relapsing-remitting MS. We assessed 231 patients treated in Sweden before January 1, 2020. The final cohort comprised 33 patients treated with BEAM/ATG and 141 with Cy/ATG. Prospectively collected data from the Swedish MS registry were used for efficacy, and electronic health records for procedure-related safety. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of ‘no evidence of disease activity’ (NEDA) at 5 years was 81% (CI 68–96%) with BEAM/ATG and 71% (CI 63–80%) with Cy/ATG, p = 0.29. Severe adverse events were more common with BEAM/ATG, mean 3.1 vs 1.4 per patient, p = <0.001. Febrile neutropaenia occurred in 88% of BEAM/ATG patients and 68% of Cy/ATG patients, p = 0.023. Average hospitalisation was 3.0 days longer in BEAM/ATG patients from day of stem-cell infusion, p < 0.001. While both regimens showed similar efficacy, BEAM/ATG was associated with more severe adverse events and prolonged hospitalisation. In the absence of randomised controlled trials, Cy/ATG may be preferable for ASCT in patients with relapsing-remitting MS due to its favourable safety profile.","PeriodicalId":9126,"journal":{"name":"Bone Marrow Transplantation","volume":"59 11","pages":"1601-1610"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41409-024-02397-x.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"BEAM or cyclophosphamide in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Silfverberg, Christina Zjukovskaja, Yassine Noui, Kristina Carlson, AutoMS-Swe Investigators, Joachim Burman\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41409-024-02397-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The most widely used conditioning regimens in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are BEAM with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and high-dose cyclophosphamide with ATG (Cy/ATG). In this retrospective study, we compare efficacy and safety of these regimens when used for relapsing-remitting MS. We assessed 231 patients treated in Sweden before January 1, 2020. The final cohort comprised 33 patients treated with BEAM/ATG and 141 with Cy/ATG. Prospectively collected data from the Swedish MS registry were used for efficacy, and electronic health records for procedure-related safety. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of ‘no evidence of disease activity’ (NEDA) at 5 years was 81% (CI 68–96%) with BEAM/ATG and 71% (CI 63–80%) with Cy/ATG, p = 0.29. Severe adverse events were more common with BEAM/ATG, mean 3.1 vs 1.4 per patient, p = <0.001. Febrile neutropaenia occurred in 88% of BEAM/ATG patients and 68% of Cy/ATG patients, p = 0.023. Average hospitalisation was 3.0 days longer in BEAM/ATG patients from day of stem-cell infusion, p < 0.001. While both regimens showed similar efficacy, BEAM/ATG was associated with more severe adverse events and prolonged hospitalisation. In the absence of randomised controlled trials, Cy/ATG may be preferable for ASCT in patients with relapsing-remitting MS due to its favourable safety profile.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone Marrow Transplantation\",\"volume\":\"59 11\",\"pages\":\"1601-1610\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41409-024-02397-x.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone Marrow Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41409-024-02397-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone Marrow Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41409-024-02397-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自体造血干细胞移植(ASCT)治疗多发性硬化症(MS)最广泛使用的调理方案是BEAM联合抗胸腺细胞球蛋白(ATG)和大剂量环磷酰胺联合ATG(Cy/ATG)。在这项回顾性研究中,我们比较了这些治疗方案用于复发性缓解型多发性硬化症的疗效和安全性。我们对2020年1月1日前在瑞典接受治疗的231名患者进行了评估。最终队列包括 33 名接受 BEAM/ATG 治疗的患者和 141 名接受 Cy/ATG 治疗的患者。瑞典多发性硬化症登记处前瞻性收集的数据用于评估疗效,电子健康记录用于评估与手术相关的安全性。5年后 "无疾病活动证据"(NEDA)的Kaplan-Meier估计值为:BEAM/ATG为81%(CI 68-96%),Cy/ATG为71%(CI 63-80%),P = 0.29。BEAM/ATG的严重不良事件更常见,平均每名患者3.1起,Cy/ATG为1.4起,P = 0.29。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

BEAM or cyclophosphamide in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BEAM or cyclophosphamide in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BEAM or cyclophosphamide in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
The most widely used conditioning regimens in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) are BEAM with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and high-dose cyclophosphamide with ATG (Cy/ATG). In this retrospective study, we compare efficacy and safety of these regimens when used for relapsing-remitting MS. We assessed 231 patients treated in Sweden before January 1, 2020. The final cohort comprised 33 patients treated with BEAM/ATG and 141 with Cy/ATG. Prospectively collected data from the Swedish MS registry were used for efficacy, and electronic health records for procedure-related safety. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of ‘no evidence of disease activity’ (NEDA) at 5 years was 81% (CI 68–96%) with BEAM/ATG and 71% (CI 63–80%) with Cy/ATG, p = 0.29. Severe adverse events were more common with BEAM/ATG, mean 3.1 vs 1.4 per patient, p = <0.001. Febrile neutropaenia occurred in 88% of BEAM/ATG patients and 68% of Cy/ATG patients, p = 0.023. Average hospitalisation was 3.0 days longer in BEAM/ATG patients from day of stem-cell infusion, p < 0.001. While both regimens showed similar efficacy, BEAM/ATG was associated with more severe adverse events and prolonged hospitalisation. In the absence of randomised controlled trials, Cy/ATG may be preferable for ASCT in patients with relapsing-remitting MS due to its favourable safety profile.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bone Marrow Transplantation
Bone Marrow Transplantation 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
337
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Bone Marrow Transplantation publishes high quality, peer reviewed original research that addresses all aspects of basic biology and clinical use of haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. The broad scope of the journal thus encompasses topics such as stem cell biology, e.g., kinetics and cytokine control, transplantation immunology e.g., HLA and matching techniques, translational research, and clinical results of specific transplant protocols. Bone Marrow Transplantation publishes 24 issues a year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信