4.7 Article

How I use allogeneic HSCT for adults with inborn errors of immunity

期刊

BLOOD
卷 138, 期 18, 页码 1666-1676

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.2020008187

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) are rare disorders caused by germline mutations in immune system regulating genes, primarily manifesting as severe infections and possibly associated with autoimmunity, inflammation, and malignancy. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) has become a preferred treatment for early, severely affected IEI children and is now increasingly considered for adult patients as well.
Inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) are rare inherited disorders arising from monogenic germline mutations in genes that regulate the immune system. The majority of IEI are primary immunodeficiencies characterized by severe infection often associated with autoimmunity, autoinflammation, and/or malignancy. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) has been the corrective treatment of choice for many IEIs presenting with severe disease in early childhood, and experience has made this a successful and comparatively safe treatment in affected children. Early HSCT outcomes in adults were poor, resulting in extremely limited use worldwide. This is changing because of a combination of improved IEI diagnosis to inform patient selection, better understanding of the natural history of specific IEI, and improvements in transplant practice. Recently published HSCT outcomes for adults with IEIs have been comparable with pediatric data, making HSCT an important option for correction of clinically severe IEIs in adulthood. Here we discuss our practice for patient selection, timing of HSCT, donor selection and conditioning, peri- and post-HSCT management, and our approach to long-term follow-up. We stress the importance of multidisciplinary involvement in the complex decision-making process that we believe is required for successful outcomes in this rapidly emerging area.

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

4.7
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