Search

Introduction Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) is a potentially curative treatment for many hematological diseases. However, lack of availability of specialized centers and high costs limit access to the procedure in low and middle income countries. Previous research has shown that Latin-American patients with hematological malignancies have worse outcomes when treated in public health systems compared to patients treated in the private setting. Healthcare in Mexico is provided by three systems: the private sector (financed by a private insurance or out of pocket), social security (government-run health systems) and a public system (partially funded by the government), where the most vulnerable population is treated. To date, disparities in outcomes of BMT between patients in public and private health systems have not been widely studied. Objectives Primary: to determine the impact of access to private healthcare in BMT recipients by comparing the outcomes of patients treated in two centers that are led by a single team. Secondary objectives were to determine differences in the overall treatment population and transplantation strategies in each context. Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients aged 15 and older who underwent BMT regardless of diagnosis form 2015-2021 in two Institutions: 1) A private hematology practice treating insured patients in conventional BMT units similar to those in high-income countries (Private) and 2) A public academic institution where an outpatient transplant strategy is common in the context of significant limitations in access to quality supportive care and high-cost medications (Public). Both programs are led by the same team of hematologists following similar transplant strategies with the salient features being the frequent use of peripheral blood stem cells, chemotherapy-based conditioning regimens, and the preferred use of haploidentical donors vs. matched unrelated donors. We excluded second transplants from this analysis and patients who received them were censored at the time of infusion. We compared baseline characteristics, overall survival (OS), event free survival (EFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), and the incidence of GVHD in the two different treatment systems. Results A total of 219 patients underwent BMT from January 2015 to June 2021, n=166 (76%) were performed in the Public setting, and n=53 (24%) in the Private setting. Patients in the Private group were older, with a higher proportion of high/very high disease risk index (DRI), hematopoietic cell comorbidity index (HCT-CI) and more frequent use of myeloablative conditioning (Table 1). A similar proportion haploidentical donor grafts were performed (61 vs 57%) with a single matched unrelated donor transplant in the Private center. Median follow-up was 9.7 (0.2-71), and 10.3 (0.7-67.6) months, for Public and Private centers respectively (p=0.38). Median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were similar. Seventy patients (42%) in Public, and 15 patients (28%) in Private groups relapsed (p=0.049), with a median time to relapse of 17.5 vs. 47.6 months (p Conclusion Patients who undergo BMT in the public health system are at risk for significantly worse outcomes when compared to patients cared for in private systems even if a similar strategy is followed and are led by the same team. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures González López: AMGEN: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Gomez-Almaguer: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gomez-De Leon: ASH: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria.

Background Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) feasibility has increased in the last decades because of haplo-HSCT, changes in chemotherapy schedules, and the possibility of an outpatient-based HSCT. The main barriers remain in low-middle income countries. There is a lack of information regarding haplo-HSCT with a myeloablative (MAC) regimen on an outpatient basis. Objectives Our primary objective was to determine if outpatient haplo-HSCT was feasible. Study design Single center, retrospective cohort, n=60 adult patients undergoing Haplo-HSCT. Descriptive statistical analysis, univariate and multivariate comparison. Patients and method We analyzed 60 adult patients transplanted with an intended haplo-HSCT on an outpatient basis from 2015 to 2019 in our unit. A multivariate analysis was performed on risk factors for hospitalization. Results Median age was 27 years (15-64). All patients underwent conditioning as outpatients, and none required hospitalization before day 0. Thirteen patients (21.6%) were followed completely in the outpatient clinic and 47 (78.3%) required hospitalization in a median of 3 days after infusion (range, 1-14). The median length of stay (LOS) was 8 days (IQR, 3-17). Fever secondary to cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common reason for hospitalization occurring in 43/47 (91.5%), 4 were related to infection and 36 were related to CRS. In the univariate analysis, CRS, slower engraftment, and female sex were associated with the need for hospitalization. In the multivariate analysis, only CRS remained significant (OR 9.14 [95%CI, 1.58-56.46]). The 2-year overall survival (OS) was 41.7% for ambulatory transplant vs. 38% for those requiring hospitalization (P = 0.12). The 2-year event-free survival (EFS) was 33% for outpatient patients and 16.7% for those hospitalized (log-rank, P=0.062). Conclusions We demonstrated the feasibility and safety of carrying out an outpatient haplo-HSCT, potentially resulting in cost savings and perhaps a higher quality of life.