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

Flow cytometry data analysis of CD34+/CD133+ stem cells in bone marrow and peripheral blood and T, B, and NK cells after hematopoietic grafting

This article provides flow cytometry information regarding levels of expression for hematopoietic stem cell markers CD34 and CD133 obtained simultaneously of the bone marrow and peripheral blood from recipients of allogeneic and autologous transplants of PB hematoprogenitors for treating hematological malignancies and who were clinically healthy after ≥100 days following the procedure. CD34 and CD133 expression is compared regarding type of transplant (autologous vs. allogeneic) and sample cell source (bone marrow vs. peripheral blood). Patients were conditioned with a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen. Also shown is the flow cytometry analysis of mononuclear cell and lymphocyte populations in the peripheral blood of both types of recipients, as well as the characterization of immune cells, including T lymphocyte antigenic make up markers CD3, CD4 and CD8, B lymphocytes and NK cells, including total NK, bright and dim subtypes in the peripheral blood of both types of recipients. For further information and discussion regarding interpretation and meaning of post-transplant flow cytometry analysis, please refer to the article “Assessment of immune reconstitution status in recipients of a successful hematopoietic stem cell transplant from peripheral blood after reduced intensity conditioning” [1]. Keywords: Bone Marrow, CD34+ cells, CD133+ hematoprogenitors, Flow cytometry, Hematopoietic transplant, Peripheral blood, T, B and NK cell

The impact of medical education and networking on the outcome of leukemia treatment in developing countries. The experience of International Consortium on Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (IC-APL)

Objectives: Several clinical trials conducted in Europe and US reported favorable outcomes of patients with APL treated with the combination of all trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and anthracyclines. Nevertheless, the results observed in developing countries with the same regimen was poorer, mainly due to high early mortality mainly due bleeding. The International Consortium on Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (IC-APL) is an initiative of the International Members Committee of the ASH and the project aims to reduce this gap through the establishment of international network, which was launched in Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay. Methods: The IC-APL treatment protocol is similar to the PETHEMA 2005, but changing idarubicin to daunorubicin. All patients with a suspected diagnosis of APL were immediately started on ATRA, while bone marrow samples were shipped to a national central lab where genetic verification of the diagnosis was performed. The immunofluorescence using an anti-PML antibody allowed a rapid confirmation of the diagnosis and, the importance of supportive measures was reinforced. Results: The interim analysis of 97 patients enrolled in the IC-APL protocol showed that complete remission (CR) rate was 83% and the 2-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 80% and 90%, respectively. Of note, the early mortality rate was reduced to 7.5%. Discussion: The results of IC-APL demonstrate the impact of educational programs and networking on the improvement of the leukemia treatment outcome in developing countries

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care