Haploidentical Transplantation in Severe Aplastic Anemia

August 8, 2017 updated by: Wu Xiaoxiong

A Research on Haploidentical Transplantation in Severe Aplastic Anemia Using Reduced-intensity Fludarabine-based Conditioning

This is a prospective case-control study on SAA patients treated with HSCT, order to further discuss and assess the safety, feasibility and effectiveness of HFD-HSCT which performed with reduced-intensity fludarabine-based conditioning regimen.Our findings would indicate that SAA patients who lack MSD benefited most if HFD-HSCT was performed with reduced-intensity fludarabine-based conditioning regimen, and our improved outcomes with HFD-HSCT may lead to a salvaged therapy and an expanded direct role for SAA in the future.

Study Overview

Status

Unknown

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

60

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Beijing, China, 100048
        • Department of Hematology, 304th Clinical Division, Chinese PLA General Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

(i) Diagnosis of SAA, very SAA or SAA and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) according to the International Aplastic Anemia Study Group; (ii) SAA patients no response to previous IST; (iii) adequate performance status [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score 0-2].

Exclusion Criteria:

(i) Congenital forms of aplastic anemia; (ii)Patients with any severe pulmonary, cardiac, liver, or renal diseases or active infection.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Other: MSD-HSCT
This group received treatment of matched sibling donor - hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (MSD-HSCT).
  1. Conditioning regimens: (A) Patients had SAA and PNH, or heavy transfusion (RBC≥25U), or failed rabbit ATG therapy, and received 0.8 mg/kg/6h busulfan (days -7 to -6), 30mg/m2/day fludarabine (days -5 to -2), 25 mg/kg/day cyclophosphamide (days -5 to -2) and 2.5 mg/kg/day r-ATG (days -5 to -2). (B) The other patients with SAA or VSAA received same procedure but without busulfan;
  2. Allogeneic HSC infusion: Doner BM cells were harvested to achieve a target mononuclear cell count (MNC) of 2-4 × 108 per kilogram of recipient weight. The target MNC from PB was 4-6× 108 per kilogram of recipient weight;
  3. Prophylaxis and treatment of GVHD: GVHD prophylaxis consisted of intravenous CSP 2-3 mg/kg/day in divided doses beginning on the day before transplantation (day -5) and the target concentration was adjusted to 150-250 ng/ml. The oral MMF dose was 20 mg/kg/day from day -1 and was tapered off after 1 months if no aGVHD was observed.
Experimental: HFD-HSCT
This group received treatment of haploid family donor - hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HFD-HSCT).
  1. Conditioning regimens: (A) Patients had SAA and PNH, or heavy transfusion (RBC≥25U), or failed rabbit ATG therapy, and received 0.8 mg/kg/6h busulfan (days -7 to -6), 35mg/m2/day fludarabine (days -5 to -2), 25 mg/kg/day cyclophosphamide (days -5 to -2) and 2.5 mg/kg/day r-ATG (days -5 to -2). (B) The other patients with SAA or VSAA received same procedure but without busulfan;
  2. Allogeneic HSC infusion: Doner BM cells were harvested to achieve a target mononuclear cell count (MNC) of 2-4 × 108 per kilogram of recipient weight. The target MNC from PB was 4-6× 108 per kilogram of recipient weight;
  3. Prophylaxis and treatment of GVHD: GVHD prophylaxis consisted of intravenous CSP 2-3 mg/kg/day in divided doses beginning on the day before transplantation (day -5) and the target concentration was adjusted to 200-300 ng/ml. The oral MMF dose was 20 mg/kg/day from day -3 and was tapered off after 2 months if no aGVHD was observed.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Engraftment
Time Frame: In the first months after infusion
Neutrophil engraftment was defined as the first of three consecutive days in which the neutrophil counts (ANC) exceeded 0.50 × 109/L, and platelet engraftment was defined as the first of five consecutive days in which the platelet count exceeded 20 × 109/L without transfusion. GF was classified as follows: (1) primary non-engraftment (failure to reach a neutrophil count of 0.5×109/L after transplant); (2) rejection (decrease in blood counts to < 0.5×109/L neutrophils, after achieving a neutrophil count of 0.5×109/L); (3) late graft failure (decrease of blood counts after day 100 to < 1.0×109/L neutrophils and < 30×109/L platelets).
In the first months after infusion
Toxicity grading
Time Frame: TRT was defined as toxic effects occurring within 40 days after HSCT
The transplantation-related toxicity (TRT) was graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Organ damage due to GVHD or infectious complications were excluded.
TRT was defined as toxic effects occurring within 40 days after HSCT
Chimerism analyses +30
Time Frame: Days +30 after HSCT
Chimerism would be evaluated in recipient BM cells usually on days +30 after HSCT using cytogenetic G-banding or fluorescence in situ hybridization. Sex-matched donor-recipient chimerism was assessed using PCR-based analyses of polymorphic minisatellite or microsatellite regions. HLA typing was performed for patients with HLA-haploidentical donors.
Days +30 after HSCT
Chimerism analyses +100
Time Frame: Days +100 after HSCT
Chimerism would be evaluated in recipient BM cells usually on days +180 after HSCT using cytogenetic G-banding or fluorescence in situ hybridization. Sex-matched donor-recipient chimerism was assessed using PCR-based analyses of polymorphic minisatellite or microsatellite regions. HLA typing was performed for patients with HLA-haploidentical donors.
Days +100 after HSCT
Chimerism analyses +180
Time Frame: Days +180 after HSCT
Chimerism would be evaluated in recipient BM cells usually on days +100 after HSCT using cytogenetic G-banding or fluorescence in situ hybridization. Sex-matched donor-recipient chimerism was assessed using PCR-based analyses of polymorphic minisatellite or microsatellite regions. HLA typing was performed for patients with HLA-haploidentical donors.
Days +180 after HSCT
Chimerism analyses +365
Time Frame: Days +365 after HSCT
Chimerism would be evaluated in recipient BM cells usually on days +365 after HSCT using cytogenetic G-banding or fluorescence in situ hybridization. Sex-matched donor-recipient chimerism was assessed using PCR-based analyses of polymorphic minisatellite or microsatellite regions. HLA typing was performed for patients with HLA-haploidentical donors.
Days +365 after HSCT
OS 1-year
Time Frame: 1-year after HSCT
OS was defined as the time from transplantation to death from any cause or the last follow-up.
1-year after HSCT
OS 2-year
Time Frame: 2-year after HSCT
OS was defined as the time from transplantation to death from any cause or the last follow-up.
2-year after HSCT
OS 5-year
Time Frame: 5-year after HSCT
OS was defined as the time from transplantation to death from any cause or the last follow-up.
5-year after HSCT
EFS 1-year
Time Frame: 1-year after HSCT

EFS was defined as survival with a response to therapy. Death, GF and relapse were considered as treatment failure.

EFS was defined as survival with a response to therapy. Death, GF and relapse were considered as treatment failure.

1-year after HSCT
EFS 2-year
Time Frame: 2-year after HSCT
EFS was defined as survival with a response to therapy. Death, GF and relapse were considered as treatment failure.
2-year after HSCT
EFS 5-year
Time Frame: 5-year after HSCT
EFS was defined as survival with a response to therapy. Death, GF and relapse were considered as treatment failure.
5-year after HSCT

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Study Director: Xiaoxiong WU, PhD, The First Affiliated Hospital of General Hospital of PLA

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

July 10, 2017

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

July 1, 2020

Study Completion (Anticipated)

December 1, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 1, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 8, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

August 11, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

August 11, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 8, 2017

Last Verified

August 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Severe Aplastic Anemia

Clinical Trials on MSD-HSCT

3
Subscribe