ECP versus ruxolitinib in steroid-refractory acute GVHD – a retrospective study by the EBMT transplant complications working party

IntroductionExtracorporal Photophoresis (ECP) is in clinical use for steroid-refractory and steroid-dependent acute GVHD (SR-aGVHD). Based on recent Phase-III study results, ruxolitinib has become the new standard of care for SR-aGVHD. Our aim was to collect comparative data between ruxolitinib and ECP in SR-aGVHD in order to improve the evidence base for clinical decision making. MethodsWe asked EBMT centers if they were willing to participate in this study by completing a data form (Med-C) with detailed information on GVHD grading, -therapy, -dosing, -response and complications for each included patient.Results31 centers responded positively (14%) and we included all patients receiving alloSCT between 1/2017-7/2019 and treated with ECP or ruxolitinib for SR-aGVHD grades II-IV from these centers. We identified 53 and 40 patients with grades II-IV SR-aGVHD who were treated with ECP and ruxolitinib, respectively. We performed multivariate analyses adjusted on grading and type of SR-aGVHD (steroid dependent vs. refractory). At day+90 after initiation of treatment for SR-aGVHD we found no statistically significant differences in overall response. The odds ratio in the ruxolitinib group to achieve overall response vs. the ECP group was 1.13 (95% CI = [0.41; 3.22], p = 0.81). In line, we detected no statistically significant differences in overall survival, progression-free survival, non-relapse mortality and relapse incidence.DiscussionThe clinical significance is limited by the retrospective study design and the current data can’t replace prospective studies on ECP in SR-aGVHD. However, the present results contribute to the accumulating evidence on ECP as an effective treatment option in SR-aGVHD

PTCy versus ATG as graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis in mismatched unrelated stem cell transplantation

There is an increased risk of GVHD and of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic stem cell transplantations (alloSCT) when mismatched unrelated donors (MMUD) are used. In Europe, it is standard practice to use rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) to reduce the high NRM and GVHD risks after MMUD alloSCT. As an alternative to rATG, post-transplantation Cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is in increasing clinical use. It is currently impossible to give general recommendations regarding preference for one method over another since comparative evidence from larger data sets is lacking. To improve the evidence base, we analyzed the outcome of rATG vs. PTCy prophylaxis in adult patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing first peripheral blood alloSCT from MMUD (9/10 antigen match) between Jan 2018 and June 2021 in the database of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). We performed multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional-hazards regression model. We included 2123 patients in the final analyses (PTCy, n = 583; rATG, n = 1540). p values and hazard ratios (HR) presented here are multivariate outcomes. Two years after alloSCT we found a lower NRM in the PTCy group of 18% vs. 24.9% in the rATG group; p = 0.028, HR 0.74. Overall survival in the PTCy cohort was higher with 65.7% vs. 55.7% in the rATG cohort; p < 0.001, HR 0.77. Progression-free survival was also better in the PTCy patients with 59.1% vs. 48.8% when using rATG; p = 0.001, 0.78. The incidences of chronic GVHD and acute GVHD were not significantly different between the groups. We found significantly lower NRM as well as higher survival in recipients of peripheral blood alloSCTs from MMUD receiving PTCy as compared to rATG. The results of the current analysis suggest an added value of PTCy as GVHD prophylaxis in MMUD alloSCT.

ATG or post-transplant cyclophosphamide to prevent GVHD in matched unrelated stem cell transplantation?

There is a high risk of GVHD and non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic stem cell transplantations (alloSCT) from unrelated donors. Prophylaxis with rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) is standard in Europe but post-transplantation Cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is an emerging alternative. We analyzed outcomes of rATG (n = 7725) vs. PTCy (n = 1039) prophylaxis in adult patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing peripheral blood alloSCT from 10/10 antigen-matched unrelated donors (MUD) between January 2018 and June 2021 in the EBMT database. The provided P-values and hazard ratios (HR) are derived from multivariate analysis. Two years after alloSCT, NRM in the PTCy group was 12.1% vs. 16.4% in the rATG group; p = 0.016; HR 0.72. Relapse was less frequent after PTCy vs. rATG (22.8% vs. 26.6%; p = 0.046; HR 0.87). Overall survival after PTCy was higher (73.1% vs. 65.9%; p = 0.001, HR 0.82). Progression free survival was better after PTCy vs. rATG (64.9% vs. 57.2%; p < 0.001, HR 0.83). The incidence of chronic GVHD was lower after PTCy (28.4% vs. rATG 31.4%; p = 0.012; HR 0.77), whereas the incidence and severity of acute GVHD were not significantly different. GVHD-free relapse-free survival was significantly higher in the PTCy arm compared to the rATG arm (2 y incidence: 51% vs. 45%; HR: 0.86 [95% CI 0.75–0.99], p = 0.035). In the absence of evidence from randomized controlled trials, our findings support a preference for the use of PTCy in adult recipients of peripheral blood alloSCTs from MUD.

The impact of pre-transplantation diabetes and obesity on acute graft-versus-host disease, relapse and death after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation : a study from the EBMT Transplant Complications Working Party

Obesity and diabetes can modulate immune responses, which may impact allogeneic HCT outcomes and GvHD. From the EBMT registry, we included 36,539 adult patients who underwent allogeneic HCT for a hematological malignancy between 2016 and 2020. Of these, 5228 (14%) had obesity (BMI >= 30 kg/m(2)), 1415 (4%) had diabetes (requiring treatment with insulin or oral hypoglycemics), and 688 (2%) had obesity + diabetes pre-transplantation. Compared with patients without diabetes or obesity, the hazard ratio (HR) of grade II-IV acute GvHD was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.06, p = 0.89) for patients with obesity, 0.95 (CI 0.85-1.07, p = 0.43) for patients with diabetes, and 0.96 (CI 0.82-1.13, p = 0.63) for patients with obesity + diabetes. Non-relapse mortality was higher in patients with obesity (HR 1.08, CI 1.00-1.17, p = 0.047), diabetes (HR 1.40, CI 1.24-1.57, p < 0.001), and obesity + diabetes (HR 1.38, CI 1.16-1.64, p < 0.001). Overall survival after grade II-IV acute GvHD was lower in patients with diabetes (HR 1.46, CI 1.25-1.70, p < 0.001). Pre-transplantation diabetes and obesity did not influence the risk of developing acute GvHD, but pre-transplantation diabetes was associated with poorer survival after acute GvHD.Peer reviewe

DataSheet_1_ECP versus ruxolitinib in steroid-refractory acute GVHD – a retrospective study by the EBMT transplant complications working party.pdf

IntroductionExtracorporal Photophoresis (ECP) is in clinical use for steroid-refractory and steroid-dependent acute GVHD (SR-aGVHD). Based on recent Phase-III study results, ruxolitinib has become the new standard of care for SR-aGVHD. Our aim was to collect comparative data between ruxolitinib and ECP in SR-aGVHD in order to improve the evidence base for clinical decision making. MethodsWe asked EBMT centers if they were willing to participate in this study by completing a data form (Med-C) with detailed information on GVHD grading, -therapy, -dosing, -response and complications for each included patient.Results31 centers responded positively (14%) and we included all patients receiving alloSCT between 1/2017-7/2019 and treated with ECP or ruxolitinib for SR-aGVHD grades II-IV from these centers. We identified 53 and 40 patients with grades II-IV SR-aGVHD who were treated with ECP and ruxolitinib, respectively. We performed multivariate analyses adjusted on grading and type of SR-aGVHD (steroid dependent vs. refractory). At day+90 after initiation of treatment for SR-aGVHD we found no statistically significant differences in overall response. The odds ratio in the ruxolitinib group to achieve overall response vs. the ECP group was 1.13 (95% CI = [0.41; 3.22], p = 0.81). In line, we detected no statistically significant differences in overall survival, progression-free survival, non-relapse mortality and relapse incidence.DiscussionThe clinical significance is limited by the retrospective study design and the current data can’t replace prospective studies on ECP in SR-aGVHD. However, the present results contribute to the accumulating evidence on ECP as an effective treatment option in SR-aGVHD.</p