RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to determine the value of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) as a therapeutic intervention for progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS) based on a systematic review of the current literature. METHODS: All studies from the databases PubMed and Google Scholar published in English before February 2024 which provided individual data for PMS patients were systematically reviewed. PICO was defined as population (P), primary progressive MS and secondary progressive MS patients; intervention (I), treatment with aHSCT; comparison (C), none, disease-modifying therapy treated/relapsing-remitting MS cohorts if available; outcome (O), transplant-related mortality, progression-free survival (PFS) and no evidence of disease activity. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies met the criteria including 665 patients with PMS (74 primary progressive MS, 591 secondary progressive MS) and 801 patients with relapsing-remitting MS as controls. PFS data were available for 647 patients. PMS patients showed more severe disability at baseline than relapsing-remitting MS patients. The average transplant-related mortality for PMS in 10 studies was 1.9%, with 10 deaths in 528 patients. PFS ranged from 0% to 78% in PMS groups 5 years after treatment initiation, demonstrating a high variability. No evidence of disease activity scores at 5 years ranged from 0% to 75%. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data, aHSCT does not halt progression in people with PMS. However, there appears to be evidence of improved outcome in selected patients. Due to the heterogeneity of the available data, more comprehensive clinical trials assessing the efficacy of aHSCT across different patient groups are urgently needed to reduce variability and improve patient stratification.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) exhibits promising results for multiple sclerosis (MS) in the short term. We investigated the long-term outcome differences in disease progression and cognitive impairment after aHSCT and alemtuzumab treatment. METHODS: 20 patients receiving aHSCT and 21 patients treated with alemtuzumab between 2007 and 2020 were included in this monocentric observational cohort study. The primary objective was to compare the outcome of both groups with regards to achieving No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA-3), defined by the absence of relapses, EDSS progression, and MRI activity. Secondary endpoints in the study included the assessment of neurocognitive functioning, quality of life (QoL), Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC), and EDSS improvement. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between both groups were comparable, except for a longer disease duration in the alemtuzumab group of 11.3 years compared to 5.4 years in aHSCT-treated patients (p = 0.002) and a longer mean follow-up time in the aHSCT cohort of 9.0 (range 2.8-15.7) years compared to 5.9 years (range 0.9-9.2) in alemtuzumab patients. NEDA-3 was more frequently observed in the aHSCT group with 75.0 % and 55.0 % at five and 10 years, respectively, than in the alemtuzumab group with only 40.0 % at five years (p = 0.012). Relapse free survival was higher in the aHSCT group (p < 0.001). None of the aHSCT-treated patients showed new T2-lesions six months after therapy initiation until the end of the observational period in contrast to 35.0 % of the alemtuzumab-treated patients showing new T2-lesions (95 %CI 14.2-98.9, p = 0.002). aHSCT-treated patients showed significantly improved cognitive performance in five out of 12 cognitive tests whereas alemtuzumab treated patients deteriorated in four out of 12 tests. Quality of life remained on a constant level for up to 10 years in patients receiving aHSCT with improved scores for the subscale fatigue (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: aHSCT seems to be superior to alemtuzumab in maintaining long-term NEDA-3 status, improving cognition and stabilizing quality of life for up to 10 years.