Search

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), one of the most common and serious complications after allogeneic stem cell transplantation, is mediated by allocative T cells. IL-6 mediates both pro- and anti-inflammatory effects and modulates T cell response through classical signaling and trans-signaling. We investigated the effects on the mTOR and JAK/STAT pathways after various types of IL-6 signaling for circulating T cells were derived from 31 allotransplant recipients 90 days post-transplant. Cells were stimulated with IL-6 alone, hyper-IL-6 (trans-signaling), IL-6+IL-6 receptor (IL-6R; classical + trans-signaling) and IL-6+IL-6R+soluble gp130-Fc (classical signaling), and flow cytometry was used to investigate the effects on phosphorylation of AKT (Thr308), mTOR (Ser2442), STAT3 (Ser727) and STAT3 (Tyr705). CD3+CD4+ and CD3+C8+ T cells responded to classical and trans IL-6 stimulation with increased STAT3 (Tyr705) phosphorylation; these responses were generally stronger for CD3+CD4+ cells. STAT3 (Tyr705) responses were stronger for patients with previous acute GVHD; CD3+CD4+ cells from GVHD patients showed an additional STAT3 (Ser727) response, whereas patients without acute GVHD showed additional mTOR (Ser2448) responses. Furthermore, treatment with antithymocyte globulin as a part of GVHD prophylaxis was associated with generally weaker STAT3 (Tyr705) responses and altered STAT3 (Ser727) responsiveness of CD3+CD4+ cells together with increased mTOR (Ser2448) responses for the CD3+CD8+ cells. Thus, early post-transplant CD3+CD4+ and CD3+ CD8+ T cell subsets differ in their IL-6 responsiveness; this responsiveness is modulated by antithymocyte globulin and differs between patients with and without previous acute GVHD. These observations suggest that allotransplant recipients will be heterogeneous with regard to the effects of post-transplant IL-6 targeting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS)-patients receive multiple red blood cell transfusions (RBCT). Transfusions may cause iron-related toxicity and mortality, influencing outcome after allogeneic HSCT. This prospective non-interventional study evaluated 222 MDS and CMML patients undergoing HSCT. Overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), and relapse incidence (RI) at 36 months were 52%, 44%, 25%, and 31%, respectively. Age, percentage of marrow blasts and severe comorbidities impacted OS. RFS was significantly associated with RBCT burden prior to HSCT (HR: 1.7; p =.02). High ferritin levels had a significant negative impact on OS and RI, but no impact on NRM. Administration of iron chelation therapy prior to HSCT did not influence the outcome, but early iron reduction after HSCT (started before 6 months) improved RFS significantly after transplantation (56% in the control group vs. 90% in the treated group, respectively; p =.04). This study illustrates the impact of RBCT and related parameters on HSCT-outcome. Patients with an expected prolonged survival after transplantation may benefit from early iron reduction therapy after transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several pretransplant factors, including CRP (C-reactive protein) levels, reflect the risk of complications after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. IL-6 induces CRP increase, and we therefore investigated the effects of pretransplant IL-6, soluble IL-6 receptors, IL-6 family cytokines and CRP serum levels on outcome for 100 consecutive allotransplant recipients. All patients had related donors, none had active infections and 99 patients were in complete remission before conditioning. The incidence of acute graft versus host disease (aGVHD) requiring treatment was 40%, survival at Day +100 82%, and overall survival 48%. Despite a significant correlation between pretransplant CRP and IL-6 levels, only CRP levels significantly influenced transplant-related mortality (TRM). However, CRP did not influence overall survival (OS). Pretransplant IL-31 influenced late TRM. Finally, there was a significant association between pretransplant IL-6 and early postconditioning weight gain (i.e., fluid retention), and this fluid retention was a risk factor for aGVHD, TRM and OS. To conclude, pretransplant CRP, IL-31 and early posttransplant fluid retention were independent risk factors for TRM and survival after allotransplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The type of nutritional support seems to have relatively minor effects on the post-transplant metabolomic profile. • The metabolic profile of patients treated with standard-care nutritional support indicates an insufficient calorie intake compared with patients treated with individualized enteral nutritional support. Patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation usually require nutritional support. There is no consensus on whether enteral support through tube feeding should be preferred. A recent randomized study could not detect any difference between enteral and parenteral feeding with regard to post-transplant outcomes, whereas 2 retrospective studies described an association between enteral feeding and a favorable post-transplant outcome. We compared pre- and post-transplant plasma metabolomic profiles for 10 patients receiving mainly enteral nutritional support and 10 patients receiving mainly parenteral support. Samples were collected before conditioning and 3 weeks post-transplant; 824 metabolites were analyzed using mass spectrometry. The pretransplant metabolite profiles showed a significant overlap between the 2 groups. Post-transplant samples for both patient groups showed an increase of secondary bile acids and endocannabinoids, whereas reduced levels were seen for food preservatives, plasmalogens, and retinol metabolites. The main post-transplant differences between the groups were decreased levels of fatty acids and markers of mitochondrial activation in the control group, indicating that these patients had insufficient energy intake. A significant effect was also seen for heme/bilirubin metabolism for the parenteral support. To conclude, allotransplant recipients showed altered metabolic profiles early after transplantation; this was mainly due to the conditioning/transplantation/reconstitution, whereas the type of nutritional support had minor effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]