Defibrotide in Severe Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome: Medicine and Economic Issues

Andrographolide attenuated MCT-induced HSOS via regulating NRF2-initiated mitochondrial biogenesis and antioxidant response

Hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (HSOS) is a death-dealing liver disease with a fatality rate of up to 67%. In the study present, we explored the efficacy of andrographolide (Andro), a diterpene lactone from Andrographis Herba, in ameliorating the monocrotaline (MCT)-induced HSOS and the underlying mechanism. The alleviation of Andro on MCT-induced rats HSOS was proved by biochemical index detection, electron microscope observation, and liver histological evaluation. Detection of hepatic ATP content, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number, and protein expression of nuclear respiratory factor-1 (NRF1) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1 alpha (PPARGC1A) demonstrated that Andro strengthened mitochondrial biogenesis in livers from MCT-treated rats. Chromatin immunoprecipitation assay exhibited that Andro enhanced the occupation of nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NFE2L2, also known as NRF2) in the promoter regions of both PPARGC1A and NRF1. Andro also activated the NRF2-dependent anti-oxidative response and alleviated liver oxidative injury. In Nrf2 knock-out mice, MCT induced more severe liver damage, and Andro showed no alleviation in it. Furthermore, the Andro-activated mitochondrial biogenesis and anti-oxidative response were reduced in Nrf2 knock-out mice. Contrastingly, knocking out Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (Keap1), a NRF2 repressor, reduced MCT-induced liver damage. Results from co-immunoprecipitation, molecular docking analysis, biotin-Andro pull-down, cellular thermal shift assay, and surface plasmon resonance assay showed that Andro hindered the NRF2-KEAP1 interaction via directly binding to KEAP1. In conclusion, our results revealed that NRF2-dependent liver mitochondrial biogenesis and anti-oxidative response were essential for the Andro-provided alleviation of the MCT-induced HSOS. Graphical Headlights: 1. Andro alleviated MCT-induced HSOS via activating antioxidative response and promoting mitochondrial biogenesis. 2. Andro-activated antioxidative response and mitochondrial biogenesis were NRF2-dependent. 3. Andro activated NRF2 via binding to KEAP1.

Impact of Defibrotide in the Prevention of Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease Following Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Defibrotide is indicated for patients who develop severe sinusoidal obstructive syndrome following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Preclinical data suggested that defibrotide carries a prophylactic effect against acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of defibrotide on the incidence and severity of aGVHD.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included all consecutive transplanted patients between January 2014 and December 2018. A propensity score based on 10 predefined confounders was used to estimate the effect of defibrotide on aGVHD via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

Of the 482 included patients, 64 received defibrotide (defibrotide group) and 418 did not (control group). Regarding main patient characteristics and transplantation modalities, the two groups were comparable, except for a predominance of men in the defibrotide group. The median age was 55 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 40-62). Patients received allo-HCT from HLA-matched related donor (28.6%), HLA-matched unrelated donor (50.8%), haplo-identical donor (13.4%), or mismatched unrelated donor (7.0%). Stem cell source was either bone marrow (49.6%) or peripheral blood (50.4%). After using IPTW, exposure to defibrotide was not significantly associated with occurrence of aGVHD (HR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.62-1.52; P = .9) or occurrence of severe aGVHD (HR = 1.89, 95% CI: 0.98-3.66; P = .058).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Defibrotide does not seem to have a protective effect on aGVHD in patients undergoing allo-HCT. Based on what has been reported to date and on these results, defibrotide should not be considered for the prevention of aGVHD outside clinical trials.

Cost-Effectiveness of Defibrotide in the Prophylaxis of Veno-Occlusive Disease after Pediatric Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) remains a serious complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Prophylactic use of defibrotide (DF) might further reduce VOD rates but has no impact on the incidence of severe VOD or VOD-associated mortality. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic DF according to the British Committee for Standards in Haematology/British Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation guidelines in 348 children who underwent transplantation between 2001 and 2014 in our hospital, 138 of whom were at risk for VOD. The VOD incidence was 7.4% for the total cohort. Patients at risk had a higher incidence of VOD compared with patients without risk factors (15.2% versus 2.4%, P < .0001). VOD occurred more often in patients after busulfan-based myeloablative conditioning than in patients after total body irradiation (11.2% versus 3.5%, P = .001). Donor types or the transplantation-related mortality (TRM) risk score did not correlate with VOD incidence. In 81% of patients who responded to therapeutic DF, VOD resolved completely. Overall VOD-associated mortality was .3% for the complete cohort, 3.7% for patients diagnosed with VOD, and 20% for patients with severe VOD. Neither the cumulative incidence of TRM (19% ± 8% versus 17% ± 2%, P = .706) nor the median length of hospitalization differed between patients with VOD and patients without. The median costs per HSCT in patients with VOD were about one-third higher than the overall median costs per transplantation at our institution. The calculated total costs of prophylactic DF treatment for 138 patients at risk was almost 6 times as high as the incremental costs for patients with VOD. We conclude that prophylactic DF for children at risk for VOD is not cost-effective with respect to TRM and length of hospital stay.