-
Clinical Transplantation Jul 2020The role of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) in patients with hematologic diseases undergoing umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) remains controversial. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The role of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) in patients with hematologic diseases undergoing umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively evaluate this issue. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Clinical studies reporting the impact of ATG- vs non-ATG-containing conditioning regimens on transplantation outcomes were identified. Twenty-five studies were included. ATG significantly prevented grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) (11 studies, 5020 patients, HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.42-0.56, P < .001; 5 studies, 5490 patients, HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.46-0.80, P < .001) but not chronic GVHD (8 studies, 5952 patients, HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.51-1.20, P = .266). However, use of ATG was associated with increased transplantation-related mortality and inferior overall survival (9 studies, 4244 patients, HR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.38-2.33, P < .001; 8 studies, 5438 patients, HR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.56-2.46, P < .001). Our study did not recommend routine use of ATG in UCBT. Individualizing the ATG timing and dose based on patient characteristics to retain the prophylactic effects of ATG on GVHD without compromising the survival of UCBT recipients may be reasonable.
Topics: Antilymphocyte Serum; Cord Blood Stem Cell Transplantation; Graft vs Host Disease; Hematologic Diseases; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Transplantation Conditioning
PubMed: 32277839
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13876 -
International Urology and Nephrology Apr 2020The aim of this meta-analysis is to explore the effect of IL-2RA vs rATG on the rate of acute rejection, post-transplant infections, and graft as well as patient's... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis is to explore the effect of IL-2RA vs rATG on the rate of acute rejection, post-transplant infections, and graft as well as patient's survival in standard- and high-risk renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus-based maintenance immunotherapy.
METHODS
Random effects model was the method used for identifying risk difference. Confidence interval including the value 1 was used as evidence for statistically significant risk difference. Heterogeneity was assessed using Der Simonian analysis. Heterogeneity was evident at the level of P value < 0.1 RESULTS: The random effects model showed no significant differences in both acute rejection rates between IL-2RA and rATG induction therapies with relative risk of 1.24 graft survival with relative risk 0.90. Patient survival also did not demonstrate any significant difference with a relative risk of 1.19. Random effects for CMV infection showed a lesser tendency for CMV infection in IL-2RA group compared to ATG group the with a relative risk of 0.73.In subgroup analysis, the random effects model for acute rejection rates in high-risk transplants showed a higher risk of acute rejection in the IL-2RA group compared to rATG (relative risk equals 1.55) In standard-risk transplants, there were no significant differences between both groups with relative risk equals 1.02 CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in patient and graft survival when using IL-2RA vs rATG with the tacrolimus-based maintenance immunosuppression era. However, subgroup analysis showed less incidence of rejection in high-risk renal transplant recipient's population using rATG compared to IL-2RA.
Topics: Antilymphocyte Serum; Basiliximab; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Daclizumab; Graft Rejection; Graft Survival; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Kidney Transplantation; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Models, Statistical; Receptors, Interleukin-2; Survival Rate; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 32170593
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-020-02418-w -
Haematologica Jan 2020Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is one therapy option for treatment of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, the use of several different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is one therapy option for treatment of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, the use of several different immunosuppressive regimens, the lack of high-quality studies, and the absence of validated predictive biomarkers pose important challenges. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and searched MEDLINE PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, COCHRANE registry of clinical trials (CENTRAL), and the Web of Science without language restriction from inception through September 2018, as well as relevant conference proceedings and abstracts, for prospective cohort studies or clinical trials investigating IST in MDS. Fixed and Random-effects models were used to pool response rates. We identified nine prospective cohort studies and 13 clinical trials with a total of 570 patients. Overall response rate was 42.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 36.1-49.2%] including a complete remission rate of 12.5% (95%CI: 9.3-16.6%) and red blood cell transfusion independence rate of 33.4% (95% CI: 25.1-42.9%). The most commonly used forms of IST were anti-thymocyte globulin alone or in combination with cyclosporin A with a trend towards higher response rates with combination therapy. Progression rate to acute myeloid leukemia was 8.6% per patient year (95%CI: 3.3-13.9%). Overall survival and adverse events were only inconsistently reported. We were unable to validate any biomarkers predictive of a therapeutic response to IST. IST for treatment of lower-risk MDS patients can be successful to alleviate transfusion burden and associated sequelae.
Topics: Antilymphocyte Serum; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Immunosuppressive Agents; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 31004015
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2019.219345