4.7 Article

Conditioning with rabbit versus horse ATG dramatically alters clinical outcomes in identical twins with severe aplastic anemia transplanted with the same allogeneic donor

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY & ONCOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13045-015-0173-x

关键词

Severe aplastic anemia; Rabbit versus horse ATG conditioning; Allogeneic bone marrow transplant; Identical twins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Severe aplastic anemia (SAA) is a rare disorder leading to bone marrow failure, which if left untreated, is invariably fatal. Conventional therapies with immunosuppressive therapy or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are highly effective. HSCT can offer a greater outcome in younger patients who have an available HLA match-related donor. Recent studies showing the addition of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) to the conditioning regimen improves engraftment and reduces the risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). There are currently two ATG preparations in the USA, equine (or horse) and rabbit ATG. These agents are pharmacologically distinct, having significant differences in their pharmacokinetics and in vivo immunosuppressive effects [N Engl J Med 365(5):430-438, 2011]. Here, we report a case of two monozygotic twins with constitutional SAA that evolved to myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who both underwent allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSC) from the same single HLA antigen mismatched sibling donor with the only difference in the transplant regimen being the type of ATG used in the preparative regimen; one twin received horse ATG and the other received rabbit ATG during conditioning. This report emphasizes that dramatic differences in donor T cell chimerism and clinical outcomes including GVHD can occur as a consequence of the type of ATG that is utilized in the transplant conditioning regimen. These differences highlight that these agents should not be considered interchangeable drugs when used in this setting.

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