Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide-Based Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis

Javier Bolaños‐Meade(Johns Hopkins University), Mehdi Hamadani(NHS Blood and Transplant), Juan Wu(Johns Hopkins University), Monzr M. Al Malki(Johns Hopkins University), Michael J. Martens(Johns Hopkins University), Lyndsey Runaas(Johns Hopkins University), Hany Elmariah(Johns Hopkins University), Andrew R. Rezvani(Johns Hopkins University), Mahasweta Gooptu(Johns Hopkins University), Karilyn Larkin(Johns Hopkins University), Brian C. Shaffer(Harvard University), Najla El Jurdi(University of Minnesota), Alison W. Loren(Johns Hopkins University), Melhem Solh(Northside Hospital), Aric C. Hall(Johns Hopkins University), Amin M. Alousi(The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center), Omer Jamy(Johns Hopkins University), Miguel‐Angel Perales(Harvard University), Janny M. Yao(City Of Hope National Medical Center), Kristy Applegate(Johns Hopkins University), Ami S. Bhatt(Johns Hopkins University), Leslie S. Kean(Boston Children's Hospital), Yvonne A. Efebera(Johns Hopkins University), Ran Reshef(Harvard University), William Clark(Johns Hopkins University), Nancy DiFronzo(Johns Hopkins University), Eric Leifer(Johns Hopkins University), Mary M. Horowitz(Johns Hopkins University), Richard J. Jones(Johns Hopkins University), Shernan G. Holtan(University of Minnesota)
New England Journal of Medicine
June 21, 2023
Cited by 532Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

In patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), a calcineurin inhibitor plus methotrexate has been a standard prophylaxis against graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). A phase 2 study indicated the potential superiority of a post-transplantation regimen of cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil. Download a PDF of the Research Summary. In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with hematologic cancers in a 1:1 ratio to receive cyclophosphamide–tacrolimus–mycophenolate mofetil (experimental prophylaxis) or tacrolimus–methotrexate (standard prophylaxis). The patients underwent HSCT from an HLA-matched related donor or a matched or 7/8 mismatched (i.e., mismatched at only one of the HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, and HLA-DRB1 loci) unrelated donor, after reduced-intensity conditioning. The primary end point was GVHD-free, relapse-free survival at 1 year, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, with events defined as grade III or IV acute GVHD, chronic GVHD warranting systemic immunosuppression, disease relapse or progression, and death from any cause. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, GVHD-free, relapse-free survival was significantly more common among the 214 patients in the experimental-prophylaxis group than among the 217 patients in the standard-prophylaxis group (hazard ratio for grade III or IV acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, disease relapse or progression, or death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.83; P=0.001). At 1 year, the adjusted GVHD-free, relapse-free survival was 52.7% (95% CI, 45.8 to 59.2) with experimental prophylaxis and 34.9% (95% CI, 28.6 to 41.3) with standard prophylaxis. Patients in the experimental-prophylaxis group appeared to have less severe acute or chronic GVHD and a higher incidence of immunosuppression-free survival at 1 year. Overall and disease-free survival, relapse, transplantation-related death, and engraftment did not differ substantially between the groups. Among patients undergoing allogeneic HLA-matched HSCT with reduced-intensity conditioning, GVHD-free, relapse-free survival at 1 year was significantly more common among those who received cyclophosphamide–tacrolimus–mycophenolate mofetil than among those who received tacrolimus–methotrexate. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; BMT CTN 1703 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03959241.) QUICK TAKE VIDEO SUMMARYGraft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis 02:16


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis