1.
Extracorporeal photopheresis versus alternative treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children and adolescents
Buder, K., Zirngibl, M., Bapistella, S., Meerpohl, J. J., Strahm, B., Bassler, D., Weitz, M.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2022;6(6):Cd009898
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, occurring in 6% to 65% of the paediatric recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for cGvHD is treatment with corticosteroids, frequently combined with other immunosuppressive agents in people with steroid-refractory manifestations. There is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory cGvHD. The therapeutic options for these patients include extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), an immunomodulatory treatment that involves ex vivo collection of mononuclear cells from peripheral blood, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen, ultraviolet radiation and re-infusion of the processed cell product. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and first updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ECP for the management of cGvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2021), MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase databases from their inception to 25 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restrictions. We searched five conference proceedings and nine clinical trial registries on 9 November 2020 and 12 November 2020, respectively. SELECTION CRITERIA We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without alternative treatment versus alternative treatment alone in children and adolescents with cGvHD after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreements in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author. MAIN RESULTS We found no studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in this 2021 review update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We could not evaluate the efficacy of ECP in the treatment of cGvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation since the second review update again found no RCTs. Current recommendations are based on retrospective or observational studies only. Thus, ideally, ECP should be applied in the context of controlled trials only. However, performing RCTs in this population will be challenging due to the limited number of eligible participants, variable disease presentation and the lack of well-defined response criteria. International collaboration, multicentre trials and appropriate funding for such trials will be needed. If treatment decisions based on clinical data are made in favour of ECP, recipients should be carefully monitored for beneficial and harmful effects. In addition, efforts should be made to share this information with other clinicians, for example by setting up registries for children and adolescents treated with ECP.
PICO Summary
Population
Children and adolescents with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) taking part in randomised controlled trials
Intervention
Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) with or without alternative treatment
Comparison
Alternative treatment alone
Outcome
The authors found no studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review.
2.
Mesenchymal stromal cells as treatment or prophylaxis for acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease in haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients with a haematological condition
Fisher, S. A., Cutler, A., Doree, C., Brunskill, S. J., Stanworth, S. J., Navarrete, C., Girdlestone, J.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;1:Cd009768
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) can develop acute or chronic, or both forms of graft-versus-host disease (a/cGvHD), whereby immune cells of the donor attack host tissues. Steroids are the primary treatment, but patients with severe, refractory disease have limited options and a poor prognosis. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) exhibit immunosuppressive properties and are being tested in clinical trials for their safety and efficacy in treating many immune-mediated disorders. GvHD is one of the first areas in which MSCs were clinically applied, and it is important that the accumulating evidence is systematically reviewed to assess whether their use is favoured. OBJECTIVES To determine the evidence for the safety and efficacy of MSCs for treating immune-mediated inflammation post-transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (from 1990) and ongoing trial databases to 6 December 2018. No constraints were placed on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs of participants with a haematological condition who have undergone an HSCT as treatment for their condition and were randomised to MSCs (intervention arm) or no MSCs (comparator arm), to prevent or treat GvHD. We also included RCTs which compared different doses of MSCs or MSCs of different sources (e.g. bone marrow versus cord). We included MSCs co-transplanted with haematopoietic stem cells as well as MSCs administered post-transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We employed a random-effects model for all analyses due to expected clinical heterogeneity arising from differences in participant characteristics and interventions. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 completed RCTs (879 participants), and 13 ongoing trials (1532 enrolled participants planned). Of 12 completed trials, 10 compared MSCs versus no MSCs and two compared different doses of MSCs. One trial was in people with thalassaemia major, the remaining trials were for haematological malignancies. Seven trials administered MSCs to prevent GvHD, whereas five trials gave MSCs to treat GvHD.In the comparison of MSCs with no MSCs, cells were administered at a dose of between 10(5) and 10(7) cells/kg in either a single dose (six trials) or in multiple doses (four trials) over a period of three days to four months. The dose-comparison trials compared 2 x 10(6) cells/kg with 8 x 10(6) cells/kg in two infusions, or 1 x 10(6) cells/kg with 3 x 10(6) cells/kg in a single infusion.The median duration of follow-up in seven trials which administered MSCs prophylactically ranged from 10 to 60 months. In three trials of MSCs as treatment for aGvHD, participants were followed up for 90 or 100 days. In two trials of MSCs as treatment for cGvHD, the mean duration of follow-up was 13.4 months (MSC group) and 23.6 months (control group) in one trial, and 56 weeks in the second trial. Five trials included adults only, six trials included adults and children, and one trial included children only. In eight trials which reported the gender distribution, the percentage of females ranged from 20% to 59% (median 35.8%).The overall quality of the included studies was low: randomisation methods were poorly reported and several of the included studies were subject to a high risk of performance bias and reporting bias. One trial which started in 2008 has not been published and the progress of this trial in unknown, leading to potential publication bias. The quality of evidence was therefore low or very low for all outcomes due to a high risk of bias as well as imprecision due to the low number of overall participants, and in some cases evidence based on a single study. We found that MSCs may make little or no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality in either prophylactic trials (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.42; participants = 301; studies = 5; I(2) = 34% ; low-quality evidence) or therapeutic trials (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.56; participants = 244; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), and no difference in the risk of relapse of malignant disease (prophylactic trials: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; participants = 323; studies = 6; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence) compared with no MSCs. MSCs were well-tolerated, no infusion-related toxicity or ectopic tissue formation was reported. No study reported health-related quality of life. In prophylactic trials, MSCs may reduce the risk of chronic GvHD (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89; participants = 283; studies = 6; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). This means that only 310 (95% CI 230 to 418) in every 1000 patients in the MSC arm are expected to develop chronic GvHD compared to 469 in the control arm. However, MSCs may make little or no difference to the risk of aGvHD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.17; participants = 247; studies = 6; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). In GvHD therapeutic trials, we are very uncertain whether MSCs improve complete response of either aGvHD (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.70, participants = 260, studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or cGvHD (RR 5.00, 95%CI 0.75 to 33.21, participants = 40, studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).In two trials which compared different doses of MSCs, we found no evidence of any differences in outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS MSCs are an area of intense research activity, and an increasing number of trials have been undertaken or are planned. Despite a number of reports of positive outcomes from the use of MSCs for treating acute GvHD, the evidence to date from RCTs has not supported the conclusion that they are an effective therapy. There is low-quality evidence that MSCs may reduce the risk of cGvHD. New trial evidence will be incorporated into future updates of this review, which may better establish a role for MSCs in the prevention or treatment of GvHD.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults and children with haematological malignancies (11 trials) or thalassaemia (1 trial) undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, or suffering from GvHD.
Intervention
Mesenchymal stromal cells
Comparison
No MSCs (10 trials) or different dose of MSCs (2 trials)
Outcome
MSCs were well-tolerated, no infusion-related toxicity or ectopic tissue formation was reported. In prophylactic trials, MSCs may reduce the risk of chronic GvHD. However, MSCs may make little or no difference to the risk of aGvHD. In GvHD therapeutic trials, it is very uncertain whether MSCs improve complete response of either aGvHD or cGvHD. In two trials which compared different doses of MSCs, no evidence was found of any differences in outcomes.