infections in non myeloablative reduced intensity conditioning stem cell transplant l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Infections in non-myeloablative « Reduced intensity conditioning » stem cell transplant PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Infections in non-myeloablative « Reduced intensity conditioning » stem cell transplant

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

Infections in non-myeloablative « Reduced intensity conditioning » stem cell transplant - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 162 Views
  • Uploaded on

Infections in non-myeloablative « Reduced intensity conditioning » stem cell transplant. Catherine CORDONNIER Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France. Reduced intensity conditioning SCT. OBJECTIVES: -> Reduce the early toxicity of allogeneic SCT -> Keep the Graft-versus-leukemia effect

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Infections in non-myeloablative « Reduced intensity conditioning » stem cell transplant' - emerson


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
infections in non myeloablative reduced intensity conditioning stem cell transplant

Infections in non-myeloablative« Reduced intensity conditioning » stem cell transplant

Catherine CORDONNIER

Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France

slide2

Reduced intensity conditioning SCT

OBJECTIVES:

-> Reduce the early toxicity of allogeneic SCT

-> Keep the Graft-versus-leukemia effect

  • Mainly proposed to:

- older patients (> 55 y)

- patients with comorbidity

  • Reduces the duration of neutropenia
  • Reduces mucosal and liver toxicity
  • Does not solve the problem of GVHD
slide3

Example of a RIC / non myelo-ablative regimen

Immunesuppression vs Myelosuppression

TBI 2 Gy

PB SCT

Chimerism Analyses

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

28

56

84

Fludarabine: 30 mg/sq./d

Cyclosporine

Mycophenolate Mofetil

From Niederwieser et al. 2003

slide4

RIC: Different preparative regimens

from Kassim AA et al. BMT 2005

MyeloAblative

MOderate intensity

MInimal intensity

slide5
RIC reduces the Transplant (non relapse) Related Mortality after Allogeneic SCT – Results of historical comparisons

BUT TRENDS FOR HIGHER RELAPSE RATES IN MANY DISEASES

immune reconstitution after ric 1 neutropenia
Immune reconstitution after RIC (1)Neutropenia

After Fluda-TBI 2Gy in AML(Hegenbart JCO 2006):

No neutropenia at all (PMN > 500/µL): 27%

Median nadir of PMN: 216/µL

Median No. Days with PMN<500/µL: 6 days

Other RIC regimens:

Variable

Never as deep and long as in MA regimens

immune reconstitution after ric 1 t and b cell populations
Immune reconstitution after RIC (1)T and B cell Populations
  • Few comparative data with conventional transplants
  • CD4: better recovery in RIC vs MA(Jimenez 2005)

slow recovery in RIC(Larosa 2005)

  • TRECs: better recovery at 6 months in RIC vs MA(Jimenez 2005)
  • B cells: slower recovery after RIC vs MA(Schulenburg 2005)
ebv specific immune reconstitution is delayed after ric chakrabarti et al blood 2003
EBV-specific immune reconstitution is delayed after RIC(Chakrabarti et al. Blood 2003)

Recovery of circulating antigen-specific T-cell immunity to EBV determined by ELIspot assays / controls

reduced intensity conditioning regimens and infections 1
Reduced Intensity Conditioning Regimens and Infections (1)

Many contradictory reports at the beginning

« High rate of secondary viral and bacterial infections in patients

undergoing allogeneic bone-marrow mini-transplantation »

(Mohty et al. BMT 2000)

« Reduced-intensity conditioning reduces the risk of severe infections

after allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation »

(Martino et al. BMT 2001)

« High rate of invasive fungal infections following nonmyeloablative

allogeneic transplantation » (Hagen et al. CID 2003)

reduced intensity conditioning regimens and infections 2
Reduced Intensity Conditioning Regimens and Infections (2)
  • No prospective study between RIC and standard SCT sofar published
  • Only retrospective, case control studies, with bias of selection:

- Age

- Contraindication for standard conditioning

slide11

Fungal and Aspergillus infections

Historical comparison between RIC and Conventional SCT

comparison of invasive fungal infection after nonmyeloablative and myeloablative hct 1993 1998
Comparison of invasive fungal infection after nonmyeloablative and myeloablative HCT (1993-1998)

N=163

Aspergillosis

N=163

All IFI

N=1673

ns

Fukuda, T. et al. Blood 2003;102:827-833

slide13

Risk factors, timing, and mortality of aspergillosis after RIC vs conventional SCT

Daly 2003, Fukuda 2004, Kojima 2004

Aspergillosis occurs LATER after RIC (d120 vs d90)

RISK FACTORS are comparable: age > 50 y

acute/chronic GVHD

CMV

Case FATALITY rates are comparable

Aspergillosis is the first cause of non-relapse (or infectious)

mortality ALSO after RIC

should a ric be prefered in case of previous severe infection
Should a RIC be prefered in case of previous severe infection?
  • To be taken in consideration:

- underlying disease: risk to go to RIC vs MA

- risk of infection relapse

  • Previous bacterial infection:

- No if cured, without persistent focus

  • Current bacterial infection:

- Probably Yes is transplant is urgent, and the infectious situation is uncontrolled

  • Previous Fungal infection ?
allogeneic sct and previous invasive aspergillosis
Allogeneic SCT and previous Invasive aspergillosis
  • Risk of IA relapse estimated at # 30%

(Nosary 1994, Cowie 1994, Martino 1997, Offner 1998, Cornelly 2002, Fukuda 2004)

  • Probable protective effect of RIC, no TBI, secondary prophylaxis,

> 1 mo of AF therapy, and resolution of imaging before transplant

(Offner 1998, Fukuda 2004)

  • Parody et al, EBMT 2006: Retrospective survey from 23 centers on

pts transplanted with previous proven or probable IA

129 pts : 57 RIC and 72 MA

slide16

RISK FACTORS

Univariate P

Multivariate P

Conventional vs RIC

0.02

0.06

HR 2.5 (0.9-3.1)

Time of neutropenia

(every 5 day period)

<0.001

NT

< 6 weeks between

Dg of IA and AlloHSCT

0.04

NT

≥ 2 post-HSCT serum positive GM ( ≥ .8)

No

Yes

Not done

0.03

2/43 (5%)

11/24(46%)

14/62(23%)

NT

Progression of IA before Day 30 of an allogeneic SCT in patients with previous IA (Parody et al. EBMT 2006)
slide17

CONV (9 / 72)

20

15

10

RIC (4 / 57)

5

0

0

10

20

30

Days after transplant

Progression of IA BEFORE day 30 in recipients of a RIC or a conventional myeloablative regimen (CONV) [n=13 cases]

P=0.06

Incidence of progression of IA < +30d

Parody et al. EBMT 2006

slide18

RISK FACTORS

Univariate P

Multivariate P

BMT/CBT vs PBSCT

<0.0001

0.001

HR 98(9-990)

aGVHD ≥ 2 (high-dose steroids > 7ds &/or ATG)

0.01

0.04

HR 100(3.7-2900)

CMV disease

0.0001

0.01

HR 4.2(1.4-17)

Advanced disease status

0.0008

NT

Duration of neutropenia (every 5 day)

0.02

NT

< 6 w between IA-SCT

0.06

0.1

Response status of IA at SCT

0.04

Not included

Progression of IA after Day 30 of an allogeneic SCT in patients with previous IA (Parody et al. EBMT 2006)
slide20
CMV infection and disease in R+ patients

Comparison RIC (n = 34) vs MA (n=68)

Junghanss, C. et al. Blood 2002

CMV Ag « tends » to be less frequent in RIC

(53% vs 69%; p = .11)

CMV viremia « tends » to be less frequent

(3% vs 13%; p=.16) and to occur later

(d60 vs d43; p=.40) in RIC

CMV disease « tends » to be less frequent

(6% vs 19%; p=.08) and to occur later

(d85 vs d36;p=.04)

BUT ! Finally at 1 year:

No difference in the incidence of CMV combined manifestations

infections after ric transplants conclusion
Infections after RIC transplants Conclusion
  • No prospective comparative studies sofar, but….
  • A clear trend for less early bacterial infections
  • Comparable incidences of IFI, a trend for less in RIC
  • A likely protective effect of RIC in case of previous IA
  • Comparable incidences of CMV infection and disease
  • Delayed occurrence of fungal and viral infections
  • No data on late infections