Cargando…

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Effectiveness of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) is well known, but in secondary–progressive (SP)‐MS it is still controversial. Therefore, AHSCT activity was evaluated in SP‐MS using low‐dose immunosup...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mariottini, Alice, Bulgarini, Giovanni, Forci, Benedetta, Innocenti, Chiara, Mealli, Fabrizia, Mattei, Alessandra, Ceccarelli, Chiara, Repice, Anna Maria, Barilaro, Alessandro, Mechi, Claudia, Saccardi, Riccardo, Massacesi, Luca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9306891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35146841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ene.15280
_version_ 1784752643055288320
author Mariottini, Alice
Bulgarini, Giovanni
Forci, Benedetta
Innocenti, Chiara
Mealli, Fabrizia
Mattei, Alessandra
Ceccarelli, Chiara
Repice, Anna Maria
Barilaro, Alessandro
Mechi, Claudia
Saccardi, Riccardo
Massacesi, Luca
author_facet Mariottini, Alice
Bulgarini, Giovanni
Forci, Benedetta
Innocenti, Chiara
Mealli, Fabrizia
Mattei, Alessandra
Ceccarelli, Chiara
Repice, Anna Maria
Barilaro, Alessandro
Mechi, Claudia
Saccardi, Riccardo
Massacesi, Luca
author_sort Mariottini, Alice
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Effectiveness of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) is well known, but in secondary–progressive (SP)‐MS it is still controversial. Therefore, AHSCT activity was evaluated in SP‐MS using low‐dose immunosuppression with cyclophosphamide (Cy) as a comparative treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric 1:2 matched study, SP‐MS patients were treated with intermediate‐intensity AHSCT (cases) or intravenous pulses of Cy (controls) at a single academic centre in Florence. Controls were selected according to baseline characteristics adopting cardinality matching after trimming on the estimated propensity score. Kaplan–Meier and Cox analyses were used to estimate survival free from relapses (R‐FS), survival free from disability progression (P‐FS), and no evidence of disease activity 2 (NEDA‐2). RESULTS: A total of 93 SP‐MS patients were included: 31 AHSCT, 62 Cy. Mean follow‐up was 99 months in the AHSCT group and 91 months in the Cy group. R‐FS was higher in AHSCT compared to Cy patients: at Year 5, 100% versus 52%, respectively (p < 0.0001). P‐FS did not differ between the groups (at Year 5: 70% in AHSCT and 81% in Cy, p = 0.572), nor did NEDA‐2 (p = 0.379). A sensitivity analysis including only the 31 “best‐matched” controls confirmed these results. Three neoplasms (2 Cy, 1 AHSCT) and two fatalities (2 Cy) occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides Class III evidence, in SP‐MS, on the superior effectiveness of AHSCT compared to Cy on relapse activity, without differences on disability accrual. Although the suppression of relapses was observed in the AHSCT group only, AHSCT did not show advantages over Cy on disability, suggesting that in SP‐MS disability progression becomes based more on noninflammatory neurodegeneration than on inflammation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9306891
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93068912022-07-28 Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis Mariottini, Alice Bulgarini, Giovanni Forci, Benedetta Innocenti, Chiara Mealli, Fabrizia Mattei, Alessandra Ceccarelli, Chiara Repice, Anna Maria Barilaro, Alessandro Mechi, Claudia Saccardi, Riccardo Massacesi, Luca Eur J Neurol Multiple Sclerosis BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Effectiveness of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) is well known, but in secondary–progressive (SP)‐MS it is still controversial. Therefore, AHSCT activity was evaluated in SP‐MS using low‐dose immunosuppression with cyclophosphamide (Cy) as a comparative treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric 1:2 matched study, SP‐MS patients were treated with intermediate‐intensity AHSCT (cases) or intravenous pulses of Cy (controls) at a single academic centre in Florence. Controls were selected according to baseline characteristics adopting cardinality matching after trimming on the estimated propensity score. Kaplan–Meier and Cox analyses were used to estimate survival free from relapses (R‐FS), survival free from disability progression (P‐FS), and no evidence of disease activity 2 (NEDA‐2). RESULTS: A total of 93 SP‐MS patients were included: 31 AHSCT, 62 Cy. Mean follow‐up was 99 months in the AHSCT group and 91 months in the Cy group. R‐FS was higher in AHSCT compared to Cy patients: at Year 5, 100% versus 52%, respectively (p < 0.0001). P‐FS did not differ between the groups (at Year 5: 70% in AHSCT and 81% in Cy, p = 0.572), nor did NEDA‐2 (p = 0.379). A sensitivity analysis including only the 31 “best‐matched” controls confirmed these results. Three neoplasms (2 Cy, 1 AHSCT) and two fatalities (2 Cy) occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides Class III evidence, in SP‐MS, on the superior effectiveness of AHSCT compared to Cy on relapse activity, without differences on disability accrual. Although the suppression of relapses was observed in the AHSCT group only, AHSCT did not show advantages over Cy on disability, suggesting that in SP‐MS disability progression becomes based more on noninflammatory neurodegeneration than on inflammation. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-02-28 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9306891/ /pubmed/35146841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ene.15280 Text en © 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Multiple Sclerosis
Mariottini, Alice
Bulgarini, Giovanni
Forci, Benedetta
Innocenti, Chiara
Mealli, Fabrizia
Mattei, Alessandra
Ceccarelli, Chiara
Repice, Anna Maria
Barilaro, Alessandro
Mechi, Claudia
Saccardi, Riccardo
Massacesi, Luca
Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis
title Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis
title_full Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis
title_fullStr Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis
title_full_unstemmed Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis
title_short Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis
title_sort autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus low‐dose immunosuppression in secondary–progressive multiple sclerosis
topic Multiple Sclerosis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9306891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35146841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ene.15280
work_keys_str_mv AT mariottinialice autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT bulgarinigiovanni autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT forcibenedetta autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT innocentichiara autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT meallifabrizia autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT matteialessandra autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT ceccarellichiara autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT repiceannamaria autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT barilaroalessandro autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT mechiclaudia autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT saccardiriccardo autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis
AT massacesiluca autologoushaematopoieticstemcelltransplantationversuslowdoseimmunosuppressioninsecondaryprogressivemultiplesclerosis