Latin America: the next region for haematopoietic transplant progress

Haematopoietic cell transplant activity in the 28 countries comprising Latin America is poorly defined. We conducted a voluntary survey of members of the Latin American Bone Marrow Transplantation Group regarding transplant activity 2009–2012. Collated responses were compared with data of transplant rates from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation for other geographic regions. Several socio-economic variables were analysed to determine correlations with transplant rates. In total, 94 teams from 12 countries reported 11519 transplants including 7033 autotransplants and 4486 allotransplants. Annual activity increased from 2517 transplants in 2009 to 3263 in 2012, a 30% increase. Median transplants rate (transplant per million inhabitants) in 2012 was 64 (autotransplants, median 40; allotransplants, median 24). This rate is substantially lower than that in North America and European regions (482 and 378) but higher than that in the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Pacific regions (30 and 45). However, the Latin America transplant rate is 5–8-fold lower than that in America and Europe, suggesting a need to increase transplant availability. Transplant team density in Latin America (teams per million population; 1.8) is 3–4-fold lower than that in North America (6.2) or Europe (7.6). Within Latin America, there is substantial diversity in transplant rates by country partially explained by diverse socio-economic variables including per capita gross national income, health expenditure and physician density. These data should help inform future health-care policy in Latin America

Inactivated varicella zoster vaccine in autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients: an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Recipients of autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplants (auto-HSCT) have an increased risk of herpes zoster and herpes zoster-related complications. The aim of this study was to establish the efficacy and safety of an inactivated varicella zoster vaccine for the prevention of herpes zoster after auto-HSCT. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 135 medical centres (ie, stem-cell transplant centres and hospitals) in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, scheduled to receive an auto-HSCT within 60 days of enrolment, and had a history of varicella infection or were seropositive for antibodies to varicella zoster virus, or both. Exclusion criteria included a history of herpes zoster within the previous year of enrolment, and intended antiviral prophylaxis for longer than 6 months after transplantation. Participants were randomly assigned according to a central randomisation schedule generated by the trial statistician, to receive either the inactivated-virus vaccine from one of three consistency lots, a high-antigen lot, or placebo, stratified by age (= 50 years) and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis after transplantation ( 3 to <= 6 months). Participants, investigators, trial staff, and the funder's clinical and laboratory personnel were masked to group assignment. Participants were given four doses of inactivated vaccine or placebo, with the first dose 5-60 days before auto-HSCT, and the second, third, and fourth doses at about 30, 60, and 90 days after transplantation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of herpes zoster, confirmed by PCR or adjudication by a masked clinical committee, or both, assessed in all participants randomly assigned to the vaccine consistency lot group or placebo group who received at least one dose of vaccine and had auto-HSCT. Safety was assessed in all randomised participants who received at least one dose of vaccine and had follow-up data. A prespecified vaccine efficacy success criterion required the lower bound of the 95% CI be higher than 25% for the relative reduction of the hazard ratio of herpes zoster infection in participants given the vaccine from one of the consistency lots compared with those given placebo. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT01229267) and EudraCT (2010-020150-34). Findings Between Dec 7, 2010, and April 25, 2013, 560 participants were randomly assigned to the vaccine consistency lot group, 106 to the high-antigen lot group, and 564 to the placebo group. 249 (44%) of patients in the vaccine consistency lot group, 35 (33%) in the high-antigen lot group, and 220 (39%) in the placebo group discontinued before study end, mostly because of death or withdrawal. 51 participants were excluded from the primary efficacy endpoint analyses because they did not undergo auto-HSCT or were not vaccinated, or both (22 [4%] in the vaccine consistency lot group, and 29 [5%] in the placebo group). Mean follow-up for efficacy was 2 . 4 years (SD 1.3) in the vaccine consistency lot group and 2.3 years (SD 1.3) in the placebo group. 42 (8%) of 538 participants in the vaccine consistency lot group (32.9 per 1000 person-years) and 113 (21%) of 535 in the placebo group (91.9 per 1000 person-years) had a confirmed case of herpes zoster. The estimated vaccine efficacy was 63.8% (95% CI 48.4-74.6), meeting the pre-specified success criterion. For the combined vaccine groups versus the placebo group, the proportion of patients with serious adverse events (216 [33%] of 657 vs 181 [33%] of 554; risk difference 0.2%, 95% CI -5.1 to 5.5) and serious vaccine-related adverse events (five [1%] vs five [1%]; risk difference 0.1%, -1.4 to 1.1) were similar. Vaccine-related injection-site adverse events occurred more frequently in participants given vaccine than those given placebo (191 [29%] vs 36 [7%]; risk difference 22.6%, 95% CI 18.5-26.6; p<0.0001). Interpretation This study shows for the first time in a large phase 3 trial that early vaccination of auto-HSCT recipients during the peri-transplant period can be effective for the prevention of an opportunistic infection like herpes zoster and that the vaccine is well tolerated. Funding Merck & Co., Inc. Copyright (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved