Cost and quality issues in establishing hematopoietic cell transplant program in developing countries

The hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) activity has grown significantly over the past two decades in both developing and developed countries. Many challenges arise in establishing new HCT programs in developing countries, due to scarcity of resources and manpower in expertise in HCT. While cost issues can potentially hinder establishment of new HCT programs in certain regions, the focus on quality and value should be included in the general vision of leadership before establishing an HCT program. The main challenge in most developing countries is the lack of trained/qualified personnel, enormous start-up costs for a tertiary care center, and quality maintenance. Herein, we discuss the main challenges from a cost and quality perspective which occur at initiation of a new HCT program. We give real world examples of two developing countries that have recently started new HCT programs despite significant financial constraints. We also portray recommendations from the Worldwide Network of Blood and Marrow Transplantation for levels of requirements for a new HCT program. We hope that this review will serve as a general guide for new transplant program leadership with respect to the concerns of balancing high quality with concurrently lowering costs

Pre-transplantation Risks and Transplant-Techniques in Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Acute Leukaemia

Background: The role of conditioning intensity and stem cell source on modifying pre-transplantation risk in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a matter of debate, but crucial when benchmarking centres. Methods: This Retrospective, multicenter exploratory-validation analysis of 9103 patients, (55.5% male, median age 50 years; 1–75 years range) with an allogeneic HSCT between 2010 and 2016 from a matched sibling (N = 8641; 95%) or matched unrelated donor (N = 462; 5%) for acute myeloid (N = 6432; 71%) or acute lymphoblastic (N = 2671; 29%) leukaemia in first complete remission, and reported by 240 centres in 30 countries to the benchmark database of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) searched for factors associated with use of transplant techniques (standard N = 6375;70% or reduced intensity conditioning N = 2728;30%, respectively bone marrow N = 1945;21% or peripheral blood N = 7158;79% as stem cell source), and their impact on outcome. Findings: Treatment groups differed significantly from baseline population (p < 0.001), and within groups regarding patient-, disease-, donor-, and centre-related pre-transplantation risk factors (p < 0.001); choice of technique did depend on pre-transplantation risk factors and centre (p < 0.001). Probability of overall survival at 5 years decreased systematically and significantly with increasing pre-transplantation risk score (score 2 vs 0/1 HR: 1·2, 95% c.i. [1·1–1·.3], p = 0.002; score 3 vs 0/1 HR: 1·5, 95% c.i. [1·3–1·7], p < 0.001; score 4/5/6 vs 0/1 HR: 1·9, 95% c.i. [1·6–2·2], p < 0.001) with no significant differences between treatment groups (likelihood ratio test on interaction: p = 0.40). Overall survival was significantly associated with selection steps and completeness of information (p < 0.001). Interpretation: Patients' pre-transplantation risk factors determine survival, independent of transplant techniques. Transplant techniques should be regarded as centre policy, not stratification factor in benchmarking. Selection criteria and completeness of data bias outcome. Outcomes may be improved more effectively through better identifying pre-transplantation factors as opposed to refinement of transplant techniques. Funding: The study was funded by EBMT

Ruxolitinib for Glucocorticoid-Refractory Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease

BACKGROUND: Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major limitation of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation; not all patients have a response to standard glucocorticoid treatment. In a phase 2 trial, ruxolitinib, a selective Janus kinase (JAK1 and JAK2) inhibitor, showed potential efficacy in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with the investigator's choice of therapy from a list of nine commonly used options (control) in patients 12 years of age or older who had glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. The primary end point was overall response (complete response or partial response) at day 28. The key secondary end point was durable overall response at day 56. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients underwent randomization; 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group and 155 to the control group. Overall response at day 28 was higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% [96 patients] vs. 39% [61]; odds ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65 to 4.22; P<0.001). Durable overall response at day 56 was higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% [61 patients] vs. 22% [34]; odds ratio, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.94; P<0.001). The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group and 39% in the control group. The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non-relapse-related death, or addition of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.60). The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.15). The most common adverse events up to day 28 were thrombocytopenia (in 50 of 152 patients [33%] in the ruxolitinib group and 27 of 150 [18%] in the control group), anemia (in 46 [30%] and 42 [28%], respectively), and cytomegalovirus infection (in 39 [26%] and 31 [21%]). CONCLUSIONS: Ruxolitinib therapy led to significant improvements in efficacy outcomes, with a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia, the most frequent toxic effect, than that observed with control therapy