Search

Background and aimsHow to select the treatment is a challenge for the management of acquired patients with infections. This study aimed at comparing the outcomes of SAA with infections who had an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT)with that of patients who had an infection and received non-HSCT therapy.MethodsWe retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients with acquired SAA and infections who had an allo-HSCT (n = 141) with that of patients who had an infection and received non-HSCT therapy (n = 186) between July 2004 and January 2020.ResultsThe treatment-related mortality (TRM) of grade 1-2 infections in the HSCT and non-HSCT groups was 24.99% and 13.68%, respectively (P = 0.206), while the TRM of grade 3-4 infections was lower in the HSCT group than that observed in the non-HSCT group (18.54% vs. 33.33%, P = 0.036). At 6 months post-treatment, 91.30% patients in the HSCT group and 8.78% patients in the non-HSCT group had achieved a normal blood profile (P < 0.0001). The time required to discontinue transfusions of red blood cells and platelets in the non-HSCT group was longer than in the HSCT group (P < 0.0001). Estimated overall survival (OS) at 6 years was similar in the two groups (75.5% ± 3.9% vs. 76.3% ± 3.1%, P = 0.996), while the estimated failure-free survival (FFS) at 6 years was 75.2% ± 3.8% in the HSCT group and 48.9% ± 3.7% in the non-HSCT group (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that younger age, lower grade of infection (grade 1-2), and SAA (vs. very SAA) were favorable factors for OS (P < 0.05), and that the choice of HSCT and younger age were favorable factors for FFS (P < 0.0001).ConclusionThese results suggest that allo-HSCT has a better chance of a successful outcome than non-HSCT in SAA patients with an infection.

BackgroundOsteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease. Recent studies have shown that malnutrition can promote the development of osteoporosis. However, the incidence of malnutrition in patients with osteoporosis and the relationship between malnutrition and all-cause mortality has not been adequately studied. Therefore, our study investigated the relationship between malnutrition and all-cause mortality in patients with osteoporosis.MethodsWe analyzed data on 7,700 adults ≥20 years of age during National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2010. Each patient was assigned to one of three groups: normal nutritional status, mild malnutrition, and moderate to severe malnutrition. Survival curves and univariate and multivariable cox regressions based on the NHANES recommended weights were used to assess the association between malnutrition status and mortality. Moreover, cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed on the matched pairs.ResultsOverall, 7,700 eligible individuals with osteoporosis were included in the final analysis, and the mean age was 52.0 ± 0.4 years. From the Kaplan–Meier curves for long-term all-cause mortality of malnutrition, worsening malnutrition status was associated with higher incidence of all-cause mortality. In the fully adjusted models, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02–2.31, p = 0.039] at mild malnutrition status and 2.70 (95%CI, 1.95–3.74, p < 0.001) at moderate to severe malnutrition status. The cox model after matching indicated that malnutrition was still a high mortality risk than no malnutrition (aHR = 2.23, 95% CI, 1.66–3.01, p < 0.001).ConclusionsPoor malnutrition status, common in osteoporotic patients, is strongly associated with a risk for all-cause mortality comparable to that seen with normal nutritional status. These findings highlight the importance of risk stratification for nutritional status in osteoporotic patients and the implementation of strategies that is now available to help prevent malnutrition in these patients.

Background and AimsThis study aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of severe aplastic anemia (SAA) cases that had met the criteria for SAA at the time of diagnosis (group A) with SAA that had progressed from non-SAA (NSAA) (group B), both undergoing first-line immunosuppressive therapy (IST). Additionally, group B was compared with SAA that had progressed from NSAA and who had been treated by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) (group C).MethodsWe retrospectively compared 608 consecutive patients in group A (n = 232), group B (n = 229) and group C (n = 147) between June 2002 and December 2019. Six months after treatment, the rate of overall response and the fraction of patients who had achieved normal blood values, treatment-related mortality (TRM), secondary clonal disease, 5-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) were indirectly compared between group A and group B, group B and group C.ResultsSix months after treatment, the rate of overall response and the fraction of patients who had achieved normal blood values in group A was higher than in group B (65.24% vs. 40.54%, P < 0.0001; 23.33% vs. 2.25%, P < 0.0001); the same was true for group C (92.50% vs. 2.25%, P < 0.0001). The rate of relapse in group B was higher than in group C (P < 0.0001), but there were no differences in TRM and secondary clonal disease (P > 0.05). There were no differences in estimated 5-year OS between groups A and B (83.8% ± 2.6% vs. 85.8% ± 2.6%, P = 0.837), or between B and C (85.8% ± 2.6% vs. 77.9% ± 3.4%, P = 0.051). The estimated 5-year FFS in groups A and C was higher than for group B (57.1% ± 3.3% vs. 39.7% ± 3.4%, P < 0.001; 76.7% ± 3.5% vs. 39.7% ± 3.4%, P < 0.0001).ConclusionThese results indicate that IST is less effective in SAA progressing from non-SAA but allo-HSCT can improve outcomes.