Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Treating Steroid-Resistant Acute and Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease: A Multicenter Compassionate Use Experience.

Graft versus host disease (GVHD) is a severe complication after allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HSCT). Several clinical trials have reported the use of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) for the treatment of GVHD. In March 2008, the Andalusian Health Care System launched a compassionate use program to treat steroid-resistant GVHD with MSC. Clinical-grade MSC were obtained under GMP conditions. MSC therapy was administered intravenously in four separate doses of 1 × 106 cells/kg. Sixty-two patients, 45 males (7 children) and 17 females (2 children), received the treatment. Patients had a median age of 39 years (range: 7-66) at the time of the allogenic HSCT. The overall response was achieved in 58.7% of patients with acute (a)GVHD. Two years' survival for aGVHD responders was 51.85%. The overall response for patients with chronic (c)GVHD was 65.50% and the 2-year survival rate for responders was 70%. Age at the time of HSCT was the only predictor found to be inversely correlated with survival in aGVHD. Regarding safety, four adverse events were reported, all recovered without sequelae. Thus, analysis of this compassionate use experience shows MSC to be an effective and safe therapeutic option for treating refractory GVHD, resulting in a significant proportion of patients responding to the therapy.

Optimisation of empirical antimicrobial therapy in patients with haematological malignancies and febrile neutropenia (How Long study): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuation of empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) for febrile neutropenia in patients with haematological malignancies until neutrophil recovery could prolong the therapy unnecessarily. We aimed to establish whether EAT discontinuation driven by a clinical approach regardless of neutrophil recovery would optimise the duration of therapy. METHODS: We did an investigator-driven, superiority, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 4 clinical trial in six academic hospitals in Spain. Eligible patients were adults with haematological malignancies or haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients, with high-risk febrile neutropenia without aetiological diagnosis. An independent, computer-generated randomisation sequence was used to randomly enrol patients (1:1) to the experimental or control group. Investigators were masked to assignment only before randomisation. EAT based on an antipseudomonal ß-lactam drug as monotherapy (ceftazidime or cefepime, meropenem or imipenem, or piperacillin-tazobactam) or as combination therapy (with an aminoglycoside, fluoroquinolone, or glycopeptide) was started according to local protocols and following international guidelines and recommendations. For the experimental group, EAT was withdrawn after 72 h or more of apyrexia plus clinical recovery; for the control group, treatment was withdrawn when the neutrophil count was also 0·5 × 109 cells per L or higher. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of EAT-free days. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01581333. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2012, and May 31, 2016, 157 episodes among 709 patients assessed for eligibility were included in analyses. 78 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group and 79 to the control group. The mean number of EAT-free days was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (16·1 [SD 6·3] vs 13·6 [7·2], absolute difference -2·4 [95% CI -4·6 to -0·3]; p=0·026). 636 adverse events were reported (341 in the experimental group vs 295 in the control group; p=0·057) and most (580 [91%]; 323 in the experimental group vs 257 in the control group) were considered mild or moderate (grade 1-2). The most common adverse events in the experimental versus the control group were mucositis (28 [36%] of 78 patients vs 20 [25%] of 79 patients), diarrhoea (23 [29%] of 78 vs 24 [30%] of 79), and nausea and vomiting (20 [26%] of 78 vs 22 [28%] of 79). 56 severe adverse events were reported, 18 in the experimental group and 38 in the control group. One patient died in the experimental group (from hepatic veno-occlusive disease after an allogeneic haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation) and three died in the control group (one from multiorgan failure, one from invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, and one from a post-chemotherapy intestinal perforation). INTERPRETATION: In high-risk patients with haematological malignancies and febrile neutropenia, EAT can be discontinued after 72 h of apyrexia and clinical recovery irrespective of their neutrophil count. This clinical approach reduces unnecessary exposure to antimicrobials and it is safe. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Economy (PI11/02674).

Recommendations for the treatment of invasive fungal infection caused by filamentous fungi in the hematological patient

El tratamiento antifúngico del paciente hematológico ha alcanzado una gran complejidad con la llegada de nuevos antifúngicos y pruebas diagnósticas que han dado lugar a diferentes estrategias terapéuticas. La utilización del tratamiento más adecuado en cada caso es fundamental en infecciones con tanta mortalidad. La disponibilidad de recomendaciones como éstas, realizadas con la mejor evidencia por un amplio panel de 48 expertos, en las que se intenta responder a cuándo está indicado tratar y con qué hacerlo considerando diferentes aspectos del paciente (riesgo de infección fúngica, manifestaciones clínicas, galactomanano, TC de tórax y profilaxis realizada), puede ayudar a los clínicos a mejorar los resultados(AU)

Antifungal treatment in the hematological patient has reached a high complexity with the advent of new antifungals and diagnostic tests, which have resulted in different therapeutic strategies. The use of the most appropriate treatment in each case is essential in infections with such a high mortality. The availability of recommendations as those here reported based on the best evidence and developed by a large panel of 48 specialists aimed to answer when is indicated to treat and which agents should be used, considering different aspects of the patient (risk of fungal infection, clinical manifestations, galactomanann test, chest CT scan and previous prophylaxis) may help clinicians to improve the results(AU)