Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation for Advanced Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Comparison of Outcomes between CD34+ Selected and Unmodified Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

In this study, we compared transplantation outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who received a CD34⁺ cell-selected and those who received an unmodified allograft. This analysis initially included 181 patients, 60 who received a CD34⁺ cell-selected transplant and 121 who received an unmodified transplant. Owing to significant differences in disease characteristics, the analysis was limited to patients with <10% blasts before HSCT (n = 145). Two groups were defined: low risk, with low- and intermediate-risk cytogenetics (CD34⁺, n = 39; unmodified, n = 46), and high risk: poor and very poor risk cytogenetics (CD34⁺, n = 19; unmodified, n = 41). In the low-risk group, the incidence of grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) at 1 year post-transplantation was 18% in the CD34⁺ subgroup versus 41.3% in the unmodified subgroup (P = .015). There were no differences between the subgroups in the incidence of grade III-IV aGVHD. The incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) at 3 years in the 2 subgroups was 5.3% and 56%, respectively (P < .001). At 3 years post-transplantation, relapse, overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS) were similar in the CD34⁺ and unmodified subgroups: 8.1% versus 19.4% (P = .187), 58.5% versus 53.7% (P = .51), and 59.5% versus 52.4% (P = .448). However, the composite outcome combining extensive cGVHD-free status and relapse-free status (CRFS) at 3 years was 59.5% in the CD34⁺ group versus 19.2% in the unmodified group (P < .001). In the high-risk group, grade II-IV aGVHD at 1 year was 31.6% in the CD34⁺ subgroup versus 24.4% in the unmodified subgroup (P = .752). There were no differences between the subgroups in the incidence of grade III-IV aGVHD. The incidence of cGVHD at 3 years in the 2 subgroups was 0% versus 27.6% (P = .013). At 3 years post-transplantation, relapse, OS, RFS, and CRFS in the 2 subgroups were 31.6% versus 69.3% (P = .007), 35.5% versus 14.5% (P = .068), 31.6% versus 10.7% (P = .045), and 31.6% versus 6.1% (P = .001), respectively. Cytogenetic abnormalities at diagnosis and transplant type had significant univariate associations with RFS in the high-risk cohort. Only cytogenetics (P = .03) remained associated with this outcome in a multivariate model. OS was similar in the 2 transplant groups; however, CRFS was superior in the CD34⁺ cell-selected transplant group.

Electroconvulsive therapy pre-treatment with low dose propofol: comparison with unmodified treatment

BACKGROUND

Whilst electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is routinely administered under anesthesia in developed nations, in many developing countries, ECT is still administered unmodified. This practice has attracted considerable scrutiny with calls to ban unmodified ECT. However, there are no affordable alternatives for many poor, acutely ill psychiatric patients. We evaluated whether administration of intravenous propofol 0.5 mg/kg for sedation by the ECT psychiatrist just prior to otherwise unmodified treatment improved acceptance of and reduced anxiety surrounding the treatment.

METHOD

We conducted an open label trial at The King George's Medical University in Lucknow, India. Forty-nine patients received propofol pre-treatment and 50 patients received unmodified treatment as usual.

RESULTS

Socio-demographic profiles, diagnoses and clinical responses were comparable. Patients who received propofol experienced less anxiety monitored by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory just prior to ECT (p < 0.001), and had a more favorable attitude towards treatment assessed by an established questionnaire (Freeman and Kendell, 1980). Propofol patients were less likely to experience post-ictal delirium monitored by the CAM-ICU (p = 0.015) and had fewer cognitive side-effects on the MMSE (p = 0.004). There were no adverse events associated with propofol administration.

CONCLUSION

Whilst unmodified ECT should never be used when modified ECT under anesthesia is available, we have found low dose propofol can be safely administered by the ECT psychiatrist to sedate patients pre-treatment who would otherwise receive completely unmodified treatment. The intervention was associated with reduced anxiety and a more positive attitude towards ECT, without compromising efficacy. A randomized double blind controlled study is necessary to confirm these benefits.