The benefits of prophylactic defibrotide: Are the tides turning?

Pediatr Blood Cancer

Pediatric Hematology Oncology and Stem Cell Transplant, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Published: January 2025

AI Article Synopsis

  • - Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) is a serious condition that can arise after stem cell transplants (SCT), with various factors influencing its development, and the effectiveness of prophylactic defibrotide (DF) is still being evaluated.
  • - The study examined 58 pediatric SCT patients to compare VOD incidence, severity, and survival outcomes between those who received prophylactic DF and those who did not.
  • - While results weren't statistically significant, patients who developed VOD after not receiving prophylactic DF had worse disease severity and lower one-year survival rates compared to those who received DF.

Article Abstract

Background: Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) is a life-threatening endotheliopathy that can occur after stem cell transplant (SCT). Numerous risk factors contribute to the development of VOD during SCT, and the role of prophylactic defibrotide (DF) in mitigating these risks remains unclear.

Objective: We compare not only the incidence of VOD development, but also the severity of VOD and survival outcomes between patients who did and did not develop VOD and did or did not receive prophylactic DF.

Study Design: In this single-center retrospective study of 58 pediatric SCT patients from 2008 to 2022, we compare the demographics, risk profiles, and outcomes within three cohorts: Group 1: prophylactic DF and no VOD (n = 5), Group 2: prophylactic DF and development of VOD (n = 6), and Group 3: treatment DF for patients who developed VOD (n = 47).

Results: Patients with VOD who did not receive prophylactic DF had higher severity classification of disease at onset (very severe 80.9% vs. 66.7%, p = .592) and at maximum severity (very severe 89.4% vs. 83.3%, p = .532), as opposed to mild, moderate, or severe categorization compared to those who did not receive prophylactic DF. Patients who developed VOD and did not receive prophylactic DF had a lower 1-year survival probability compared to those who received prophylactic DF and still developed VOD (51.1% vs. 75% alive at 1 year, excluding the two subjects without adequate follow-up time, p = .266).

Conclusion: Although, not statistically significant in our small retrospective study, there is potential overall survival and decreased VOD severity benefits of prophylactic DF.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pbc.31396DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

receive prophylactic
16
vod
12
vod receive
12
developed vod
12
prophylactic
9
benefits prophylactic
8
prophylactic defibrotide
8
development vod
8
retrospective study
8
group prophylactic
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!