Search

Background: Over the last 3 decades, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has been successfully used to treat severe and refractory autoimmune diseases (AIDs). A multidisciplinary appraisal of potential benefits and risks by disease and transplant specialists is essential to determine individual suitability for HSCT., Objective: Our aim was to observe that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life instruments can capture the unique patient perspective on disease burden and impact of treatment., Methods: Herein, we describe the basis and complexity of end points measuring patient-reported perceptions of efficacy and tolerability used in clinical practice and trials for patients with AIDs undergoing autologous HSCT., Results: PRO measures and patient-reported experience measures are key tools to evaluate the impact and extent of disease burden for patients affected by AIDs. For formal scientific assessment, it is essential that validated general instruments are used, whereas adaptations have resulted in disease-specific instruments that may help guide tailored interventions. An additional approach relates to qualitative evaluations, from carefully structured qualitative research to informal narratives, as patient stories. The patients' subjectively reported responses to HSCT may be influenced by their preprocedure expectations and investment in the HSCT journey., Conclusions: The complexity of AIDs advocates for individualized and multidisciplinary approach to positively affect the patient journey. PROs and health-related quality of life need to be collected using validated instruments in clinical practice and trials to enable robustness of data and to ensure the impact of the intervention is comprehensively assessed, addressing the main questions and needs of the involved stakeholders., Competing Interests: This work was led and supported by the Autoimmune Diseases Working Party, Nurses Group, and Patient Advocacy Committee of the EBMT. The EBMT provided resources via the working party, data office, and registry. Other than EBMT support, there is no funding body supporting this work, commercial or otherwise. Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Autoimmune diseases (ADs) represent a heterogeneous group of conditions affecting 5-10% of the global population. In recent decades, hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), mainly autologous, has been successfully adopted to treat patients affected by severe/refractory ADs. In this context malnutrition has a detrimental impact on relapse, mortality, infection rate, engraftment, long-term survival, and prolongation of hospitalization. However, in this population, the management of nutrition should be improved since nutritional assessment is partially performed in routine clinical practice. A panel of nurses and physicians from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) reviewed all available evidence based on current literature and expert practices from centers with extensive experience in HSCT for ADs, on the nutritional management of ADs patients during HSCT procedure. In this context, adequate nutritional status predicts a better response to treatment and improves quality of life. Herein, a systematic and comprehensive monitoring of nutritional status before, during and after HSCT, with adequate nutritional support in the case of ADs patients, in addition to assessing the dietary requirements associated with HSCT has been covered. Moreover, given the singularity of each AD, the underlying disease should be considered for an appropriate approach. The management and evaluation of nutritional status must be carried out by a multidisciplinary team to assess the needs, monitor the effectiveness of each intervention, and prevent complications, especially in complex situations as patients affected by ADs., Competing Interests: RG discloses speaking honoraria from Biotest, Pfizer, Medac, Neovii and Magenta. TA received study support from Amgen, Janssen and honoraria from Neovii, GSK, Astra-Zeneca, Abbvie. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Gandossi, Jessop, Hahn, Heininger, Henes, Radaelli, Carmagnola, Morello, Renica, Bertulli, Lazzari, Kenyon, Alexander, Domenech and Greco.)