Experiences of donors enrolled in a randomized study of allogeneic bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Impact of stem cell donation modality on normal donor quality of life: a prospective randomized study. Healthy sibling donor anxiety and pain during bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell harvesting for allogeneic transplantation: results of a randomised study. Donation of stem cells from blood or bone marrow: results of a randomised study of safety and complaints. An evaluation of the donor experience in the canadian multicenter randomized trial of bone marrow versus peripheral blood allografting. Differences between graft product and donor side effects following bone marrow or stem cell donation. Peripheral blood stem cells used to augment autologous bone marrow transplantation. Oral eicosapentaenoic acid for complications of bone marrow transplantation. Outcomes of touch therapies during bone marrow transplant.
The experiences of 69 (38 marrow and 31 peripheral blood stem cell [PBSC]) donors participating in a randomized trial comparing allogeneic bone marrow with PBSC transplantation were studied. Marrow was collected by means of standard harvest techniques and general or regional anesthesia. PBSC donors were treated with 5 to 7 days of filgrastim at a dose of 16 microg/kg/d and underwent 1 to 3 days of apheresis to obtain 5 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells per kilogram recipient weight. Donors completed questionnaires describing their health experiences before, during, and then weekly after donation until return to baseline status. Both marrow and PBSC donors reported minimal fluctuation in symptoms measuring emotional status. In contrast, both groups of donors reported deterioration in physical status starting with administration of filgrastim (PBSC donors) or after the marrow collection procedure. The symptom burden reported was similar, with pain a prominent symptom for both groups. Equivalent mean levels of maximal pain, average pain, and pain duration through the day were reported, although toxicity peaks occurred at different time points during the harvest procedures. All PBSC donors but only 79% of marrow donors reported good physical status by 14 days after the harvest procedures. These data demonstrate similar levels of physical discomfort for hematopoietic stem cell donors regardless of the collection procedure used, but a quicker resolution of symptoms for PBSC donors. As part of a previously reported trial comparing granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) stimulated bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) in allogeneic stem cell transplantation, we included a questionnaire to compare donor morbidity and long-term complications between the two donation procedures. Bone marrow donation was associated with significantly more donors experiencing localized pain at the donation site compared to PBSC collection. However, this was not associated with any increased delay in returning to normal activity. Although a minority of bone marrow donors suffered chronic pain at the donation site, no serious long-term side effects relating to G-CSF stimulated stem cell donation were identified. This study reports the first comparison of healthy donor subjective well-being during two alternative procedures of hematopoietic stem cells harvesting for allogeneic transplantation. Among the 105 donors included between September 1996 and October 1998 in the SFGM French randomised trial aiming to compare allogeneic bone marrow (BM) transplantation and blood cell (BC) transplantation, 64 donors (33 in BC and 31 in BM groups) were relevant for the analysis. They had received a set of self-administered questionnaires to complete during the collection process, aiming to measure anxiety (assessed using the Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and pain induced by the procedure (evaluated using a visual analogical scale). Results showed that no harvest procedure is free from pain even if none was more painful than the other. Levels of anxiety before the collection procedure were high in both groups and significantly so for BC donors. Although BC collection induces at least similar levels of pain and anxiety as does BM collection, they were of a different kind, and the short-term impact of G-CSF stimulation on the well-being of BC donors has to be taken into account in improving quality of care in the allogeneic setting. Biological consequences and physical complaints were compared for donors randomly assigned either to blood stem cell (BSC) or bone marrow (BM) donation. In the period 1994-1999, 61 consecutive donors were included. The BSC donors were given G-CSF 10 microg/kg s.c., daily during 5 days before the first leukapheresis. Nineteen donors had one leukapheresis, 10 required two and one donor needed three leukaphereses in order to reach the target cell number of 2 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg bw of the recipient. A median platelet nadir of 102 x 10(9)/l was reached shortly after the last leukapheresis. Three weeks post harvest, 17 of 30 BSC donors had a mild leukopenia. Six had a leukopenia lasting more than a year before returning to normal values. Both groups were monitored prospectively through a standardised questionnaire completed by the donors. BSC donation was significantly less burdensome than BM donation and was preferred by the donors. The short-term risks of BSC mobilisation and harvest seem negligible. The potential long-term effects of G-CSF are unresolved and the donors must be followed closely. We compared the donation of bone marrow (BM) versus recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) in HLA-matched sibling donors. Donors randomized to donate BM or PBPC completed questionnaires (Profile of Mood States [POMS] and Short-Form 36 Health Survey) assessing peridonation health-related quality of life (QoL), donation experience, and acceptability of donation before and 1 week and 4 weeks after donation. Between January 1996 and March 1999, 184 patients and their donors were randomized. Predonation and postdonation data were available on 52 (56%) and 35 (38%) of the BM and PBPC donors, respectively. The median donor age was 45 years, and 44% were female. The median time (range) to return to full activity for the BM and PBPC donors was 4 days (1-21 days) and 2 days (0-21 days), respectively (P = .01). One week after donation, BM donors reported more fatigue and less energy than the PBPC donors. BM donors' POMS total mood disturbance scores were worse 1 week after versus before donation, whereas the PBPC donors' scores did not change. POMS subscores indicated more fatigue and less energy in the BM versus PBPC donors. Anxiety improved in both groups, but more in PBPC donors. Four weeks after donation, the Short-Form 36 Health Survey indicated persistent moderate negative effects on QoL with BM donation versus small effects with PBPC donation. BM donation was associated with more physical morbidity and negative effects on QoL up to 1 month after donation than was PBPC donation. Despite this, most donors would donate again. Further work is needed to decrease donor anxiety and symptoms. If both BM and PBPC donation are feasible, then the graft source should be dictated by the predicted patient outcome as determined from the results of randomized trials.
                Copyright 2004 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation We report graft product stem cell yields and donor safety results of a randomized multicenter study comparing allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) PBSC transplantation with BM transplantation. Matched HLA-identical sibling donors (n=329) were randomized to filgrastim-mobilized PBSC or bone marrow (BM) donation groups. Median yields per kg recipient weight of CD34(+) cells, T cells, and natural killer (NK) cells, respectively, were approximately two-fold, eight-fold, and greater than eight-fold in the PBSC group than in the BM group (CD34(+) cells, 5.8 x 10(6)/kg vs 2.7 x 10(6)/kg; T cells, 300.1 x 10(6)/kg vs 35.7 x 10(6)/kg; NK cells, 28.2 x 10(6)/kg vs 3.6 x 10(6)/kg; P<0.001 for each). In connection with the cell collection procedures, PBSC donors spent a shorter median time in hospital than BM donors (0 vs 2 days; median difference -2 days, 95% CI -2 to 2) and had fewer median days of restricted activity (2 vs 6 days; median difference -3 days, 95% CI -4 to 2). Overall, 65% of PBSC donors and 57% of BM donors reported at least one adverse event (AE), most of which were transient, mild-moderate in severity, and without clinical sequelae. PBSC donors experienced predominantly filgrastim-related AEs, while BM donors experienced predominantly harvest-related AEs. Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) were used to augment autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), aiming to hasten engraftment after high dose treatment in a group of heavily pretreated patients. PBSC were obtained by leukapheresis during the rebound after standard chemotherapy. In 11 patients aged 7-17 years, high dose chemotherapy consisted of busulphan 16 mg/kg orally with melphalan 160 mg/m2 intravenously for seven patients, and melphalan 200 mg/m2 intravenously alone for four. The median number of granulocyte-macrophage colony forming units in the reinfused PBSC was 3.42 x 10(4)/kg (3.03-18.01) and bone marrow 12.4 x 10(4)/kg (4.16-28.6). Neutrophil recovery to > or = 0.5 x 10(9)/l and platelet transfusion independence occurred at a median of 14 days (11-18) and 22 days (9-84) respectively. In five patients the early engraftment was transient with neutrophils again dropping below 0.5 x 10(9)/l then slowly recovering. There was one toxic death due to sepsis. PBSC harvesting in these children was undertaken without interrupting routine chemotherapy and without the use of bone marrow growth factors. In some patients PBSC failed to influence engraftment and the use of combined chemotherapy and growth factor priming for PBSC collection may give improved results. The 'systemic inflammatory response syndrome' (SIRS) may represent the underlying cause of complications after bone marrow transplantation (BMT). This study was conducted to determine whether blocking the etiologic factors of SIRS could improve the complications of BMT. Sixteen consecutive patients with unrelated donors were allocated alternately to two groups. Seven patients received 1.8 g/day of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) orally from 3 weeks before to about 180 days after transplantation, while nine patients did not. These two groups were compared with respect to complications, survival, and various cytokines and factors causing vascular endothelial damage. All seven patients receiving EPA survived and only two had grade III graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Among the nine patients not receiving EPA, three had grade III or IV GVHD. In addition, thrombotic microangiopathy developed in four patients and cytomegalovirus disease occurred in four. Five patients died in this group. The levels of leukotriene B(4), thromboxane A(2), and prostaglandin I(2) were significantly lower in patients receiving EPA than in those not receiving it (all P < 0.01). Cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interferon-gamma, and interleukin-10 were also significantly decreased by EPA (P < 0.05), as were factors causing vascular endothelial damage such as thrombomodulin and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (P < 0.05). The survival rate was significantly higher in the group given EPA (P < 0.01). EPA significantly reduced the complications of BMT, indicating that these complications may be manifestations of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome. The integration of complementary modalities into mainstream healthcare is gaining increasing emphasis. It is important, therefore, to document the effects of these interventions on patient outcomes.
                To investigate the effects of Therapeutic Touch and massage therapy on the outcomes of engraftment time, complications, and perceived benefits of therapy during bone marrow transplant.
                Randomized clinical trial.
                Subjects were adult patients on the bone marrow transplant unit of a large urban tertiary care center.
                Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: Therapeutic Touch (TT), massage therapy (MT), and a control group called the friendly visit (FV). Subjects (N = 88) were stratified by type of transplant (allogeneic or autologous). Twenty-seven subjects received MT; 31 received TT; and 30 received FV. Nurses with expertise in the 2 touch therapies administered them. The interventions of MT, TT, and FV were administered according to standarized protocols every third day beginning the day chemotherapy began until discharge from the program.
                Time for engraftment, complications, and patient perceptions of benefits of therapy were the main outcome measures. Analysis of variance and analysis of covariance were used to determine significant differences among the 3 groups with respect to time of engraftment.
                A significantly lower score for central nervous system or neurological complications was noted for subjects who received MT comppared with the control group; however, no differences were found among the 3 groups with respect to the other 10 complication categories or in the total mean score for complications. Patients' perception of the benefits of therapy (total score) was significantly higher for those who received MT compared with the FV control group. The mean scores on the comfort subscale were significantly higher for patients receiving both MT and TT compared with the FV control group.
                Massage therapy may be effective in altering the psychological and neurological complications associated with chemotherapy during bone marrow transplant. Both massage and Therapeutic Touch provide comfort to patients undergoing this challenging process.
The different short-term morbidities associated with each type of haemopoietic stem cell donation were clear, with bone marrow donors experiencing more pain and more restriction post-donation than peripheral blood donors. However, the studies were limited by their methodological quality, failure to provide long-term follow up (for which larger numbers of donors would be required) and a failure to apply consistent measures of quality of life in a way which allows more meaningful evaluation across studies.