Impact of mycophenolate mofetil prophylaxis duration on acute graft-versus-host disease after haploidentical stem cell transplantation
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2018.04.005
- VernacularTitle: 霉酚酸酯预防疗程对单倍体相合造血干细胞移植急性移植物抗宿主病的影响
- Author:
Yuqian SUN
1
;
Xiaojun HUANG
;
Lanping XU
;
Xiaohui ZHANG
;
Chenhua YAN
;
Kaiyan LIU
;
Yu WANG
Author Information
1. The Institute of Hematology, People’s Hospital of Peking University, Beijing 100044, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation;
Graft vs host disease;
Mycophenolate mofetil
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hematology
2018;39(4):286-291
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the impact of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) prophylaxis duration on acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) after haploidentical stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT) using 'Beijing Protocol’.
Methods:Adult patients (≥14 years) received haplo-HSCT in Peking University Institute of Hematology from Sep, 2016 to Mar, 2017 were retrospectively reviewed if they fulfilled the criterias: ①diagnosed with hematological maligancies; ②standard-risk status at haplo-HSCT. A total of 237 patients [including 102 patients with long MMF duration (defined as started on day -9 with 100 mg/d, adjusted to 500 mg/d from day +30 and discontinued on day +45 to +60 or occurrence of CMV/EBV reactivation or late-onset hemorrhagic cytitis), and 135 patients with short MMF duration (defined as started on day -9 with 500 mg/d and discontinued on the day achieved neutrophil engraftment)] were reviewed. The incidence of aGVHD, virus infection and overall survival (OS) were compared between the two groups.
Results:The median durations of MMF prophylaxis of long and short duration groups were 27(7-71) and 15(9-24) days, respectively after haplo-HSCT. There were no differences of baseline characteristics (including sex, patient age, disease, mismatched HLA loci, donor-recipient relation, donor-recipient sex and donor age) between the two groups. The incidences of the grade Ⅱ-Ⅳ and Ⅲ/Ⅳ aGVHD in long and short duration groups were 31.1% versus 17.6% (P=0.018) and 7.4% verus 7.8% (P=0.900), respectively. The duration of MMF prophylaxis was not found to be associated with gradeⅡ-Ⅳ aGVHD by the multivariate analysis. There were no significant differences in terms of CMV viremia, EBV viremia, hemorrhagic cytitis and OS between the two groups.
Conclusion:Prophylaxis with short duration MMF in the setting of 'Beijing protocol’ haplo-SCT was not associated with increased acute GVHD with no impact on OS, which indicated that short duration MMF might be a feasible GVHD prophylaxis regimen.
