A survey on cellular and engineered tissue therapies in Europe in 2008

Cellular therapy is an evolving investigational treatment modality in regenerative medicine, but little published information is available on its current use. Starting from the established European group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation activity survey on hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, a joint committee of four major scientific organizations made a coordinated attempt to collect detailed information in Europe for the year 2008. Thirty-three teams from 16 countries reported data on 656 patients to a "novel cellular therapy" survey, which were combined to additional 384 records reported to the standard European group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation survey. Indications were cardiovascular (29%; 100% autologous), musculoskeletal (18%; 97% autologous), neurological (9%; 39% autologous), epithelial/parenchymal (9%; 18% autologous), autoimmune diseases (12%; 77% autologous), or graft-versus-host disease (23%; 13% autologous). Reported cell types were hematopoietic stem cells (39%), mesenchymal stromal cells (47%), chondrocytes (5%), keratinocytes (7%), myoblasts (2%), and others (1%). In 51% of the grafts, cells were delivered after expansion; in 4% of the cases, cells were transduced. Cells were delivered intravenously (31%), intraorgan (45%), on a membrane or gel (14%), or using three-dimensional scaffolds (10%). This data collection platform is expected to capture and foresee trends for novel cellular therapies in Europe, and warrants further consolidation and extension

Plasticity after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

The postulated almost unlimited potential of transplanted hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) to transdifferentiate into cell types that do not belong to the hematopoietic system denotes a complete paradigm shift of the hierarchical hemopoietic tree. In several studies during the last few years, donor cells have been identified in almost all recipient tissues after allogeneic HSC transplantation (HSCT), supporting the theory that any failing organ could be accessible to regenerative cell therapy. However, the putative potential ability of the stem cells to cross beyond lineage barriers has been questioned by other studies which suggest that hematopoietic cells might fuse with non-hematopoietic cells and mimic the appearance of transdifferentiation. Proof that HSCs have preserved the capacity to transdifferentiate into other cell types remains to be demonstrated. In this review, we focus mainly on clinical studies addressing plasticity in humans who underwent allogeneic HSCT. We summarize the published data on non-hematopoietic chimerism, donor cell contribution to tissue repair, the controversies related to the methods used to detect donor-derived non-hematopoietic cells and the functional impact of this phenomenon in diverse specific target tissues and organ

Use of haploidentical stem cell transplantation continues to increase: the 2015 European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant activity survey report.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an established procedure for many acquired and congenital disorders of the hematopoietic system. A record number of 42 171 HSCT in 37 626 patients (16 030 allogeneic (43%), 21 596 autologous (57%)) were reported by 655 centers in 48 countries in 2015. Trends include continued growth in transplant activity over the last decade, with the highest percentage increase seen in middle-income countries but the highest absolute growth in the very-high-income countries in Europe. Main indications for HSCT were myeloid malignancies 9413 (25%; 96% allogeneic), lymphoid malignancies 24 304 (67%; 20% allogeneic), solid tumors 1516 (4%; 3% allogeneic) and non-malignant disorders 2208 (6%; 90% allogeneic). Remarkable is the decreasing use of allogeneic HSCT for CLL from 504 patients in 2011 to 255 in 2015, most likely to be due to new drugs. Use of haploidentical donors for allogeneic HSCT continues to grow: 2012 in 2015, a 291% increase since 2005. Growth is seen for all diseases. In AML, haploidentical HSCT increases similarly for patients with advanced disease and for those in CR1. Both marrow and peripheral blood are used as the stem cell source for haploidentical HSCT with higher numbers reported for the latter.Bone Marrow Transplantation advance online publication, 13 March 2017; doi:10.1038/bmt.2017.34

Economics and Outcome After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a lifesaving expensive medical procedure. Hence, more transplants are performed in more affluent countries. The impact of economic factors on patient outcome is less defined. We analyzed retrospectively a defined cohort of 102,549 patients treated with an allogeneic (N = 37,542; 37%) or autologous (N = 65,007; 63%) HSCT. They were transplanted by one of 404 HSCT centers in 25 European countries between 1999 and 2006. We searched for associations between center-specific microeconomic or country-specific macroeconomic factors and outcome. Center patient-volume and center program-duration were significantly and systematically associated with improved survival after allogeneic HSCT (HR 0·87; 0·84-0·91 per 10 patients; p < 0·0001; HR 0·90;0·85-0·90 per 10 years; p < 0·001) and autologous HSCT (HR 0·91;0·87-0·96 per 10 patients; p < 0·001; HR 0·93;0·87-0·99 per 10 years; p = 0·02). The product of Health Care Expenditures by Gross National Income/capita was significantly associated in multivariate analysis with all endpoints (R(2) = 18%; for relapse free survival) after allogeneic HSCT. Data indicate that country- and center-specific economic factors are associated with distinct, significant, systematic, and clinically relevant effects on survival after HSCT. They impact on center expertise in long-term disease and complication management. It is likely that these findings apply to other forms of complex treatments

Development of coverage with evidence development for medical technologies in Switzerland from 1996 to 2012

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess incidence, time frame, and outcome of “Coverage with Evidence Development” (CED) decisions in the Swiss Basic Health Insurance scheme. Methods: Analysis of all controversial medical technologies submitted to review by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) from 1996 to 2012 with focus on decisions with constraints. Description of types of technology, type of initial decision, duration of evaluation period, final decision, and search for potential factors associated with changes over time. Results: Forty-five (37.5 percent) of 120 controversial health technologies were classified as “yes, in evaluation, reimbursed” for a certain period of time and thirty-five (29.2 percent) as “no, in evaluation, not reimbursed” by the Federal Department of Home Affairs from 1996 to 2012. The rate of CED decisions ranged between zero and nine per year and was influenced by type of technology and calendar year. Forty-four of forty-five decisions were subject to further restrictions, to a “center or a specialist” (76 percent), “indications” (49 percent), “registry” (31 percent), or “other” (49 percent). The time to a final decision ranged from 1.5 to 11 years (median, 6 years). No factors associated with initial decision and final outcome could be identified. Conclusions: CED as a reality in Switzerland might have enabled patients to obtain access to promising technologies early in their life cycle. CED might have acted as a trigger to a successful implementation of a comprehensive national registry. The lack of qualitative data stresses the urgent need for evaluation of the HTA decisions and their impact on patient outcome and costs

Bone marrow examination: a prospective survey on factors associated with pain

Bone marrow examination (BME) represents an essential tool for diagnosis and monitoring of haematological disorders. It remains associated with morbidity and discomfort; repeat examinations are frequent. We made a single-centre prospective survey on 700 BME between July 2007 and July 2008 with a structured anonymized questionnaire for patients undergoing and physicians performing BME, which includes at our institution always aspiration and trephine. All procedures were performed according to institutionalised standard operating procedures; 412 patients' (58.9%) and 554 physicians' (79.1%) questionnaires were returned. Pain was the only procedure-related complication; no pain was reported in 149 (36.7%), bearable pain in 242 (59.6%) and unbearable pain in 15 (3.7%) cases. Premedication associated complications were reported by 110 (32.7%) of the 336 (65.4%) patients with premedication before BME. None of these were > WHO grade 2; most frequently reported were tiredness (76 patients; 22.6%), dizziness (19 patients; 5.7%) and nausea (15 patients; 4.5%). Only two factors were significantly associated with unbearable pain: "pain during prior BME” (seven of 94 with versus one of 198 without previous pain; p < 0.01) and "information before BME” (four of 11 without versus 12 of 372 with adequate information before BME; p < 0.01). Inadequate information at any time showed a trend towards an association with unbearable pain (p = 0.08). No other factor was associated with unbearable pain. Good and adequate information appears to be the best way to reduce pain, even for a future BM

Health technology assessment in Switzerland : a descriptive analysis of “coverage with evidence development” decisions from 1996 to 2013

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with the decisions of the Federal Department of Home Affairs concerning coverage with evidence development (CED) for contested novel medical technologies in Switzerland. DESIGN: Quantitative, retrospective, descriptive analysis of publicly available material and prospective, structured, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. SETTING: All 152 controversial medical services decided on by the Federal Commission on Health Insurance Benefits within the framework of the new federal law on health insurance in Switzerland from 1997 to 2013, with focus on 33 technologies assigned initially to CED and 33 to evidence development without coverage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with numbers and type of contested services assigned to CED per year, the duration and final outcome of the evaluations and perceptions of key stakeholders. RESULTS: The rate of CED decisions (82 total; median 1.5/year; range 0–9/year), the time to final decision (4.5 years median; 0.75 to +11 years) and the probability of a final ‘yes’ varied over time. In logistic regression models, the change of office of the commission provided the best explanation for the observed outcomes. Good intentions but absence of scientific criteria for decisions were reported as major comments by the stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of CED enabled access to some promising technologies early in their life cycle, and might have triggered establishment of registries and research. Impact on patients’ outcome and costs remain unknown. The primary association of institutional changes with measured end points illustrates the need for evaluation of the current health technology assessment (HTA) system