4.2 Article

Higher Dose of Mycophenolate Mofetil Reduces Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease in Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Double Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation

期刊

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 926-933

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.01.023

关键词

Transplantation; Mycophenolate mofetil; Graft-versus-host disease; Reduced-intensity conditioning; Umbilical cord blood

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [P01 CA65493]
  2. Children's Cancer Research Fund
  3. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Scholar in Clinical Research Award [R6029-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is frequently used in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis and to facilitate engraftment. We previously reported that a higher level of mycophenolic acid can be achieved with an MMF dose of 3 g/day than with 2 g/day. Here, we retrospectively compared clinical outcomes of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) double umbilical cord blood (dUCB) HCT recipients receiving cyclosporine A with MMF 2 g (n = 93) versus 3 g (n = 175) daily. Multiple regression analysis adjusted for antithymocyte globulin in the conditioning revealed that MMF 3 g/day led to a 49% relative risk (RR) reduction in grade II to IV acute GVHD rate (RR, .51; 95% confidence interval,.36 to .72; P<.01). However, the higher MMF dose was not protective for chronic GVHD. Additionally, MMF dose was not an independent predictor of neutrophil engraftment or treatment-related mortality at 6 months or 2-year post-transplantation disease relapse, disease-free survival, or overall survival. Higher MMF dose did not increase risk of infectious complications, and infection-related mortality was similar for both MMF doses. Our data indicate that MMF 3 g/day reduces the risk of acute GVHD without affecting other clinical outcomes and should be used for GVHD prophylaxis after RIC dUCB transplantation. (C) 2015 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据