For patients with refractory disease following immunosuppressive therapy who lack a matched sibling donor, MUD HSCT is considered standard therapy given the marked improvement in overall outcomes with modulating conditioning regimens and high-resolution HLA typing. A European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation analysis comparing matched sibling HSCT to MUD HSCT noted significantly higher rates of acute grade II-IV and grade III-V GVHD (grade II-IV 13% versus 25%, grade III-IV 5% versus 10%) among patients undergoing MUD transplant.47 Chronic GVHD rates were 14% in the sibling group, as compared to 26% in the MUD group. Additional benefits seen in this analysis included improved survival when transplanted under age 20 years (84% versus 72%), when transplanted within 6 months of diagnosis (85% versus 72%), the use of ATG in the conditioning regimen (81% versus 73%), and when the donor and recipient were cytomegalovirus-negative compared to other combinations (82% versus 76%).47 Interestingly, this study demonstrated that OS was not significantly increased when using a sibling HSCT compared to a MUD HSCT, likely as a result of improved understanding of conditioning regimens, GVHD prophylaxis, and supportive care.
Additional studies of MUD HSCT have shown outcomes similar to those seen in sibling HSCT.4,43 A French study found a significant increase in survival in patients undergoing MUD HSCT compared to historical cohorts (2000-2005: OS 52%; 2006-2012: OS 74%).33 The majority of patients underwent conditioning with cyclophosphamide or a combination of busulfan and cyclophosphamide, with or without fludarabine; 81% of patients included underwent in vivo T-cell depletion, and a bone marrow donor source was utilized. OS was significantly lower in patients over age 30 years undergoing MUD HSCT (57%) compared to those under age 30 years (70%). Improved OS was also seen when patients underwent transplant within 1 year of diagnosis and when a 10/10 matched donor (compared to a 9/10 mismatched donor) was utilized.4 A 2015 study investigated the role of MUD HSCT as frontline therapy instead of immunosuppressive therapy in patients without a matched sibling donor.33 The 2-year OS was 96% in the MUD HSCT cohort compared to 91%, 94%, and 74% in historical cohorts of sibling HSCT, frontline immunosuppressive therapy, and second-line MUD HSCT following failed immunosuppressive therapy, respectively. Additionally, event-free survival in the MUD HSCT cohort (defined by the authors as death, lack of response, relapse, occurrence of clonal evolution/clinical paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, malignancies developing over follow‐up, and transplant for patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy frontline) was similar compared to sibling HSCT and superior to frontline immunosuppressive therapy and second-line MUD HSCT. Furthermore, Samarasinghe et al highlighted the importance of in vivo T-cell depletion with either ATG or alemtuzumab (anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody) in the prevention of acute and chronic GVHD in both sibling HSCT and MUD HSCT.48
With continued improvement of less toxic and more immunomodulating conditioning regimens, utilization of bone marrow as a donor cell source, in vivo T-cell depletion, and use of GVHD and antimicrobial prophylaxis, more clinical evidence supports elevating MUD HSCT in the treatment plan for patients without a matched sibling donor.49 However, there is still a large population of patients without matched sibling or unrelated donor options. In an effort to expand the transplant pool and thus avoid clonal hematopoiesis, clinically significant paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, and relapsed aplastic anemia, more work continues to recognize the expanding role of alternative donor transplants (cord blood and haploidentical) as another viable treatment strategy for aplastic anemia after immunosuppressive therapy failure.50
